Sitting of 17 June 1991

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

    Opencast Coal Mines
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the arrangements for licensing opencast coal mines.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Under existing legislation, the British Coal Corporation is the licensing authority and is therefore responsible for the arrangements for licensing opencast coal production.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware of the environmental blight, pollution, traffic congestion and danger to health caused by opencast mines, which are concentrated overwhelmingly in the Neath and Swansea valleys, and elsewhere in south Wales? If the Minister concentrated them in the south-east and south-west of England, he would be skinned alive by his constituents and his Government would get a bloody nose.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree that opencast coal mining must be carried out to the highest planning and environmental standards, but to put an artificial limit on
    2
    opencast coal production as the Labour party wishes would be to the detriment of the coal industry generally and would cost many jobs in the industry.
    Mr. Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the preponderance of opencast mining is not in the hon. Gentleman's area but in mine? North-west Leicestershire has been devastated by opencast mining and there is now a proposal for a new opencast mine at the Coalfield West site. That proposal is opposed by the county council, the district council and the overwhelming majority of people in the area. Will my hon. Friend therefore reconsider the proposal and perhaps defer it for 200 years or so, until technology has improved sufficiently for such opencasting to be carried out without detriment to the environment?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I confirm that my hon. Friend has opencast mining in his constituency, and I visited a site there. The appeal decision on the site in question, however, will be made not by my Department but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Eadie: Are we to take the Minister's reply as having some relationship with the fact that he has asked Rothschild, the merchant bankers, and Touche Ross, the accountants, to advise on the privatisation of the mining industry? Will they be making recommendations about that, and will the Select Committee on Energy be bypassed yet again?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When we draw up plans to privatise the coal industry, we shall consult all interested parties, including the opencast mining sector.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amount of electricity generation likely to be generated from renewable sources by the end of the decade.
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate for the amount of electricity generation likely to be generated from renewable sources by the end of the decade.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The Government are working towards a figure of 1000 MW of new renewable electricity generating capacity by the year 2000.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will recognise that nobody expects renewable resources to be the primary contributor to our electricity supplies in the foreseeable future, but does he agree that the Government's record on research into that source bears good comparison with that of previous Governments? Is not it interesting to note that we are spending 12 times as much as the Labour Government spent on research into renewable energy?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. More than £180 million has been invested in research, development and demonstration, with a budget allocation of more than £24 million—a new record high—for this year.
    Mr. Knapman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is thanks to the privatisation of the electricity generating industry that renewables are to have their best opportunity ever to compete, and to compete on their own merits?
    Mr. Moynihan: I can indeed confirm that. Through electricity privatisation, we established the non-fossil fuel obligation, and under that obligation we are giving renewables their best opportunity ever to enter the electricity generating market.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that the Government missed a vital chance? As they intended to privatise the electricity industry, would not it have been better to create real competition, rather than the present duopoly which is concentrating only on the cheapest options—which at the moment happen to be combined-cycle gas-burn systems? Does he agree that if we were really serious about developing renewables, we would have done something about ensuring that small generators had a chance as well?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that that is precisely what is achieved under the non-fossil fuel obligation. As a result of that tranche, 75 projects that are both commercially viable and environmentally acceptable have come forward right across the board—not least in landfill gases, hydro power and wind projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will back all those projects and recognise that they are very important for the development of renewable energy on a commercial basis.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister realise that the non-fossil fuel obligation can do nothing to promote renewable resources in Scotland, where that obligation does not exist? Does he recognise that many of the renewable sources involve very heavy capital starts, with the pay-back taking place over a long period? What steps is he taking to ensure that there is a lengthening of contracts so that those who supply from renewable sources have the opportunity of a pay-back on their initial capital costs?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman has raised two important points. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rcently announced a scheme under which Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro will contract for the output of renewables projects in Scotland—a scheme which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt warmly welcome. The second point concerned the implications of the 1990 limitation on the levy. I am satisfied that the regional electricity companies have the flexibility that they need to offer generators acceptable contracts under the proposed 1991 renewables order. The reality of that is evident from the considerable number of projects proposed for recognition in the second tranche of that order.
    Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister aware that National Power has announced that it is to abandon most of the research and development work that was carried out when the industry was publicly owned and that it intends to sack hundreds of scientific research staff because, in its words, it is not prepared to continue funding research and development for the solution of national problems? If National Power will not do that research, who will?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman should have heard my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). The Government have given strong support under a substantially enhanced research and development and demonstration budget. If National Power—or any other company—can make proposals within the non-fossil fuel obligation to contract with the regional electricity companies, it will greatly benefit the development of research and development and the commercial viability of many of these important projects.

    Gas and Electricity Prices
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the directors general of Ofgas and Offer to discuss the regulation of gas and electricity prices.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I regularly meet the directors general of both Ofgas and Offer and discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the chairman of the National Consumer Council in the east midlands has severely criticised the prices being charged by the east midlands electricity authority, suggesting a figure of between 9 and 11 per cent? Consumers in the east midlands are being robbed, so the Secretary of State should get a flea in his ear and go and see those directors. Let us give them some teeth and have something done about the job. Incidentally, is the Secretary of State aware that they spent £28,000 taking business men to the cup final, and that they wined and dined them as well? What about that? It is time that the right hon. Gentleman pulled his socks up.
    Mr. Wakeham: I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of tabling a planted question—
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was my question and not a plant, although I know what goes on on the Conservative Benches.
    Mr. Wakeham: I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, not disagreeing with him. I said that the hon. Gentleman's question was not a plant, but it enables me, nevertheless, to say that domestic prices have fallen by 2·5 per cent. in real terms in the past seven years, which compares very favourably indeed with the price record of the last Labour Government, under whom there was an increase of 22 per cent. What is more, under the privatised system, domestic consumers are protected by substantial regulations which will enable prices to be kept down to the retail prices index level. That is working very well.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is genuine disquiet in the east midlands, particularly if what has happened this year were to continue for the foreseeable future—over the next two or three years? My constituents are concerned to know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is confident that the regulatory powers are adequate to meet the ever-changing market conditions.
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I am very confident that the powers are there. The increase in electricity prices for the domestic consumer will not be higher than the retail prices index over the three-year period. The director general can always come to me if he requires further powers.
    Mr. Hardy: The Secretary of State mentioned the domestic consumer. He must be aware that the electricity price increases that heavy industrial users face are a serious deterrent to the maintenance of production and to exports. Does he not realise that those users face serious international competition and that our competitor countries behave with rather more sense than we do in this important matter?
    Mr. Wakeham: We certainly do not subsidise electricity prices, which may be what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, and I would not want to do that. The larger users can now use their commercial strength in a competitive market to negotiate the best prices available. A considerable number of industrial users have already benefited from competition and have been able to secure much lower prices.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend remind that moaning grandad on the Opposition Back Bench, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), that before privatisation the monopoly producer was its own regulator?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Further to what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said, whether or not customers went to a cup final with an electricity company—
    Mr. Haynes: The company paid for it.
    Mr. Wakeham: I was about to make that point. There was no cost to the consumers. Their prices—
    Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State is a grandfather as well.
    Mr. Wakeham: Perhaps we can keep the hon. Gentleman's private life out of this.
    My point is that the regulations will mean that those expenses will not fall on the consumer.
    Mr. Barron: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it is the Government's plan that, as he rightly said, some
    6
    of the larger commercial users are able to shop around and obtain the benefit of a 15 per cent. drop in the price that they paid the year before while domestic consumers have had an increase of 11 per cent?
    Mr. Wakeham: Domestic consumers are protected by a system of price regulation. They have a different system because it is not possible to introduce competition for domestic users. They are protected by domestic regulations which do not allow prices to increase more than the retail prices index over a three-year period.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further steps he plans to take to promote the development of the technology for renewable energy resources throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Moynihan: The Government will be reviewing their policy on renewable energy sources in the second six months of this year. We will also be bringing forward a further renewable order, including reserved bands for a range of technologies later this year, and my Department will continue to support a major research and development programme aimed at developing all those renewable technologies relevant to conditions in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for that reply. In the review, will he take on board the fact that his earlier announcement about contractual arrangements between private suppliers in Scotland and the Scottish boards does nothing to benefit the generation of development of renewables by the Atomic Energy Authority's technology? Will he particularly consider the possibility of that authority being involved in the development of the programme to which he referred?
    Mr. Moynihan: I can confirm that we shall certainly take those points on board and look at them in detail during the review.
    Mr. Butler: Can my hon. Friend report on progress with regard to the Mersey barrage scheme, about which some doubts have been expressed recently?
    Mr. Moynihan: We are very keen to find a positive way forward on the Mersey barrage scheme. My officials have received a report from the Mersey Barrage Company and are currently considering it in detail. To date, we have spent £2·4 million of the £4·8 million total programme budget for the project, and we hope very much that solutions can be found to the problems and the challenges which lie ahead for the MBC.
    Mr. Flynn: Does not the Minister consider that to be a disappointing reply? Will he look for a much more positive and generous investment in tidal power—a range of tidal barrages around our coast? Is it not true that for many years, possibly a century, we have neglected the use of tidal power—which is British, eternal and non-polluting?
    Mr. Moynihan: No, I do not believe that my reply was in any way disappointing. I mentioned that we were hoping positively to find an appropriate way forward on the Mersey barrage scheme. On tidal energy research., we have put more than £8 million into development and demonstration. We have supported on a 50:50 basis

    7
    feasibility studies on the Mersey barrage, and the Department has funded about £4 million towards studies for a Severn barrage. That is a very positive programme to identify appropriate, commercially viable and environmentally acceptable projects in tidal energy.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the increase in demand for electricity generation in the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My Department does not routinely forecast electricity demand—that is the job of the industry. When specific needs arise, projections are produced as, for example, in the United Kingdom's submission to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was published as an energy paper and is available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful, on the one hand, for that answer, but I am not very grateful, on the other hand, because it says nothing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the future demand for electricity is an unknown quantity, the Government should consider the supply of electricty generated by North sea gas as it affects the Teesside area? We do not want a proliferation of pylons radiating like a spider's web from that region. There is no reason at all why other parts of the country should not have gas fed directly to them. If power stations are built in those areas, we would not need pylons despoiling the beautiful North Yorkshire countryside, which is under threat at this moment.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Additional overhead lines are sometimes necessary to connect new power stations or to strengthen the grid system, but applications to build such lines must be accommpanied by environmental statements to ensure that the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend are fully considered before permission is given.
    Mr. Benn: Can the Minister explain how it is that he disclaims responsibility for forecasting when the statute that set up his Department requires him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to safeguard the energy supplies of the United Kingdom? By saying that forecasting is the responsibility of private companies, he is absolving himself of any responsibility whatsoever for future energy policy.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are concerned to ensure a diverse and competitive supply of energy. What one can say about strategic plans and detailed projections of the past is that they were all wrong, including those made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he was Secretary of State for Energy.
    Mr. Morgan: Would the Minsiter care to comment on what the chairman of Pilkington's told shareholders at the company's annual general meeting a fortnight ago, when he said that one of the advantages of the democratic process in this country is that it might bring in a Labour Government who, unlike the present Government, actually have an energy policy?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was not at the annual general meeting, but I have visited Pilkington's, and the company was extremely happy with the way in which we are
    8
    working with the electricity industry and supplier of energy efficiency equipment to develop such a policy in the United Kingdom.

    Wind Farms
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy on wind farms.
    Mr. Moynihan: Government policy is designed to stimulate the development and application of all forms of renewable energy, including wind farms, wherever they have prospects of being economically competitive and environmentally acceptable.
    Mr. Speller: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Brian Peace of Rackenford in my constituency who has just obtained planning permission for a wind generator on his farm? Does my hon. Friend agree that the requirements are now so difficult and detailed that it might be a good idea if he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to give some advice on planning applications both to the applicants and to the councils that have to consider the applications?
    Mr. Moynihan: That is a fair point. My Department is working closely with the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment to prepare a planning policy guidance note to assist in the planning process.
    Dr. Thomas: The Minister has kindly anticipated my question. Although I do not wish to provoke a dispute between his Department and the Secretary of State for Wales, who is currently considering an application for a wind farm on my constituency boundary, will he assure the House and those who are interested in alternative sources of energy that his Department will produce those guidelines rapidly so as to encourage further such applications, especially from rural areas where the development of wind farms can benefit the agricultural economy as well as providing for local energy needs?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his introductory remarks. Although I cannot comment on the specific case to which he has referred, which is known as the Cymmaes case, I can confirm that I am anxious to see wind farms built and demonstrated within the United Kingdom. I am therefore concerned about any delays or possible effects on the viability of such projects due to lack of planning policy guidance. That is one reason why we place such high priority on producing guidance along the lines that 1 mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).

    Oil and Gas Reserves
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the level of oil and gas reserves on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
    Mr. Moynihan: My Department's report to Parliament of April this year on the "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom"—the Brown Book—gives our latest estimates of reserves. They show that additions to reserves during last year kept pace with production during the year in the case of oil, and exceeded production in the case of gas.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that those healthy estimates confound the moaning minnies and pessimists who constantly claim that our reserves are running out? Does he further agree that those figures will have a healthy influence on the British economy in the next few years?
    Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nearly half the oil so far discovered on the United Kingdom continental shelf and almost two thirds of the gas remain to be produced. We look set, therefore, to remain self-sufficient in oil well into the decade and a significant producer into the next century.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that in recent years we have been able to extract oil from below the North sea because of the different incentives introduced by the Government, through Acts of Parliament, to enable the smaller pools of oil to be used? Does he agree that if it is possible to use incentives to extract oil in that way, it is sensible to do the same for coal that is located in thinner seams? The Government should not have double standards.
    Mr. Moynihan: There are no double standards. Substantial support has been given to coal—far more than has been devoted to the development of oil and gas. The success of oil and gas production in the United Kingdom has been due primarily to the stable fiscal and regulatory regime under which international operators have worked.
    Sir Dudley Smith: The information that my hon. Friend has given about gas supplies is encouraging, but is he aware that a substantial minority of people in this country do not have a gas supply? Will he talk to those who now run the gas industry and tell them that anyone living in a reasonably built-up area should have the right to the provision of a gas supply?
    Mr. Moynihan: As my hon. Friend knows, the provision of gas supplies to domestic customers in the United Kingdom continues to increase. His point is well taken and will, no doubt, be listened to carefully by British Gas.
    Dr. Godman: When considering licence applications from offshore oil and gas companies wishing to extract those most welcome oil and gas reserves, what emphasis is placed on the safety needs of those employed in extracting those reserves? Does the Minister agree that a modern, up-to-date standby vessel fleet is essential for the safety of those workers and will he therefore impress upon the oil and gas companies the manifest need to replace the aging vessels in the fleet with modern purpose-built vessels? That is what is needed by those employed in the offshore oil and gas industry.
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. However, I draw to his attention that important safety considerations are examined at the annex B or production licence stage and not at the initial licence award round. A company that wins an award for prospectivity must prove that it achieves very high levels of safety, not least those outlined in the Cullen report. The main thrust of the important point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and with which I agree, is dealt with at the production licence stage later.
    Mr. Doran: First I welcome the initial statement made by the Minister. Opposition Members share his optimism for the North sea. Is he aware that production will continue to demand the highest possible level of encouragement from the Government? Does he share my anxiety that the Geological Society, which has been engaged in mapping the seabed in the most prospective areas, is to have its contract with the Department of Energy terminated in the next two years, even though it is about to embark on surveying areas in the north-west of Scotland where we have high hopes for further reserves of hydrocarbons?
    Mr. Moynihan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that particular work, which was commissioned a while ago, will complete its normal course in two years when full assessment will have been completed to a depth of 600 ft. If my memory serves me right, arguments to go down to 6,000 ft—which is what we are talking about in the north-west frontier acreage—is totally unreasonable and unnecessary. Of course, we shall review carefully arrangements with outstanding organisations such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, I emphasise that we are not curtailing a report. It will come to its full and complete conclusion in two years.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate how many individuals became shareholders as a result of electricity privatisation in England and Wales.
    Mr. Wakeham: Some 5 million to 6 million individuals became shareholders in the privatised electricity companies in England and Wales. A recent survey, not yet completed, has estimated that of these some 10 per cent. are new shareholders.
    Mr. Marshall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on successfully concluding the privatisation of the electricity industry which will lead to greater efficiency and keener pricing? Will he bring to the attention of those many millions of shareholders the confiscatory attitude of the Labour party?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, not only the shareholders would suffer loss if the Labour party ever achieved power. The consumers of electricity, the employees of the company, the taxpayers and, indeed, the environment would lose.

    Coal Productivity
    Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss productivity.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have regular consultations with the chairman of British Coal on all aspects of the coal industry, including the remarkable efforts that the corporation has been making to improve its productivity in its fight for a major share of the United Kingdom coal market over future years.
    Mr. Alison: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he join me in congratulating him and all concerned at British Coal on the astonishing performance of the mineworkers in the Selby group? They have

    11
    achieved a productivity record of 12·92 tonnes per man shift—almost double the industry average. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local generators National Power and PowerGen need look no further than the Selby coalfield for secure, long-term supplies of good quality coal at competitive prices?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall willingly do what my right hon. Friend suggests. Certainly, I congratulate the mineworkers at Selby. Their new weekly productivity record is, as my right hon. Friend says, over 2 tonnes higher than their previous best. Wistow in the Selby complex set a new European output record of 108,700 tonnes in a week. That demonstrates what I have said many times from this Dispatch Box—the coal industry has a great future if its productivity improvement continues in the way that my right hon. Friend describes.
    Mr. Eadie: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of British Coal will he refer to the outstanding record in coal production achieved by Longannet miners who have broken British records? Does he agree that there is a substantial case for British Coal to reopen Monktonhall colliery in my constituency? I hope that he will subscribe to that.
    Mr. Wakeham: I know the hon. Gentleman's concern about Monktonhall colliery, which we all share. British Coal plans to review the future of Monktonhall this summer. We have already written to the chairman of British Coal to ask him to take an early decision on its future. It is a matter for him, but I await with interest what he has to say.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Coal will he convey through him our thanks and appreciation to Merrick Spanton, the recently retired chairman of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. While he was there, he created 71,000 new job opportunities in coal mining areas. Will my right hon. Friend tell the new chairman, Mr. John Northard, how we welcome the fact that he and his team will relocate in Edwinstowe in my constituency? As a present for their arrival, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to support the much-needed job-creating enterprise?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to refer to those gentlemen for their distinguished service to the coal industry. He is also right that the Government will continue job-creating work in the future.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific in relation to the comments about the future of Monktonhall colliery that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)? Is he aware that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary suggested in an Adjournment debate not long ago, that it was likely that Monktonhall would be reopened? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread publicity that that received and the hopes that were raised, not only by Ministers but by British Coal, about the future of employment in that part of Lothian? Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific?
    Mr. Wakeham: I know that the hon. Gentleman will find this disagreeable, but I prefer to wait for the report before I comment on it. I look forward to receiving it as soon as it comes.
    Mr. Sumberg: Bearing in mind British Coal's overall responsibility for opencast mining applications, when my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Coal will he point out to him that an application has been made to the local council in Bury for an opencast mine in the Radcliffe area in my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman that that application is resolutely opposed by all local residents and that an effective committee, NORACC, has been formed to oppose it? If the application comes before the chairman, will he reject it?
    Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend has asked me, I shall certainly refer to the matter when I next see the chairman of British Coal. There is an established procedure. Any opencast applications that do not receive planning permission locally fall to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government are concerned that only applications that meet the highest environmental standards are approved. We shall see that that policy is continued.

    East Midlands Electricity
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take in response to the report of East Midlands Electricity plc on the electricity supply crisis which arose from severe weather conditions.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome East Midlands' comprehensive report which makes a number of recommendations. My engineering inspectorate will monitor the company's progress in implementing these, to ensure that they are carried out as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that the worst of the weather crisis occurred in north Nottinghamshire and in north Derbyshire where hundreds of thousands of people were without electricity and water supplies for a considerable period? That coincided with the flotation of East Midlands Electricity plc and meant that the Government did not declare an emergency in circumstances in which they should normally have done. Should not the Government have set up their own inquiry and not just depended on the inquiry of East Midlands Electricity plc?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No distribution network could have survived those weather conditions without sustaining damage. All those in the industry—management and staff —worked heroically to restore supplies and it is wrong to refer in any way disparagingly to their efforts or to link the problem to the privatisation of the industry.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: While on the subject of severe weather, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming last Friday's announcement on improvements to the cold weather payments scheme—the second set of improvements within six months? Will he also confirm that those vast improvements are greatly superior to those on offer under the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome that observation, although it was not my Department which introduced those improvements.
    Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister confirm that there have been more interruptions in supply to consumers since the electricity industry was privatised? Before he denies that,

    13
    will he also confirm that neither the Secretary of State nor the Office of Electricity Regulations can provide any statistics?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The privatisation of electricity has resulted in significant benefits to its consumers, which include timely reaction to any interruption of supply.

    Nuclear Energy (Employees)
    Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of people employed in Britain's nuclear energy industry.
    Mr. Wakeham: The total number of people directly employed in the British nuclear energy industry is about 40,000.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Does the Secretary of State recognise that unless he is prepared to bring the review of the nuclear industry forward to 1993, he will be faced with a declining nuclear industry? Does he regard with any great satisfaction the fact that France has 75 per cent. of its total electricity produced by the nuclear industry, while Belgium produces 60 per cent. by that method? Why cannot we have a comparable figure of electricity production from our nuclear industry?
    Mr. Wakeham: The answer to that question goes back to long before I was Secretary of State; others must bear a share of the responsibility.
    My hon. Friend has asked me to bring the 1994 review forward. I am sorry, but I do not believe that that would be the right course of action. I believe that 1994 is the correct time to review the future of the nuclear industry of this country because we will then have completed the Sizewell B project and we will have had an opportunity to consider the various options for the future. The nuclear industry has a good future if it is able to produce electricity at a low cost, and safely.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Fraud
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Attorney-General what progress is being made in improving co-operation between the Serious Fraud Office and overseas agencies in the prosecution of fraud cases.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Last week the United Kingdom implemented part 1 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 enabling us to ratify the European convention on mutual assistance; and on 14 May 1991 we also implemented the European convention on extradition.
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He will be aware that the position of London as the major financial centre in Europe is at least partly dependent upon our ability to prosecute fraud across international boundaries. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measure of international co-operation now discussed will make it much easier to prosecute fraud across international boundaries?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes I do. The director of the Serious Fraud Office keeps in close contact with her overseas equivalents. The measures that I have just
    14
    mentioned will enable us to serve summonses and other judicial documents from abroad in the same way as we do here to help to obtain evidence. They also include the use of domestic procedures for police powers of search and seizure. Those measures will enable the transfer of prisoners to give evidence overseas and from overseas to give evidence here. All that is extremely beneficial.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as soon as a villain knows that the game is up he immediately hot foots out of the United Kingdom to safety and support overseas? That leaves behind devastation and misery for those companies or people against whom he has committed fraud. Will my right hon. and learned Friend insist that we pull together the support from overseas agencies so that such people can be pursued and convicted?
    The Solicitor-General: I agree with my hon. Friend. The object of the measures is such that those alleged to have committed such fraud can be brought back from overseas to face trial.

    Grievances (Judicial Remedy)
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is considering to ease public access to the judicial remedy of grievances.
    The Solicitor-General: Following the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, the Government are implementing a series of measures to improve the machinery of civil justice and, in particular, to reduce delay, cost and complexity.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the recently published proposals by the Lord Chancellor on legal aid are widely regarded as the most openly retrograde steps proposed since legal aid was introduced in the late 1940s and that they are universally condemned by the legal profession and consumer organisations throughout the country? In the light of the already apparent hostility, will he withdraw them?
    The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor's consultation document deserves rather closer examination than that. It offers an opportunity for extending the limits of legal aid upwards in areas where it has not attempted to go under any Government. Whether it will be possible to do so will depend to some extent on the finances available. That it offers an opportunity in that direction, when hitherto no such opportunity has appeared, is something which the hon. Gentleman should no overlook.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a state-funded insurance scheme, which could cover many more people at much less cost than the present legal aid scheme, or tax relief on private insurance, would ensure that there was much greater access to the judicial system than there is at present?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend picks up another of the points to be found in the Lord Chancellor's consultation document, which is well worth careful examination.
    Mr. Fraser: Is not the proposal simply the equivalent of urging people to take out a BUPA subscription instead of

    15
    using the national health service? Can the Solicitor-General confirm that as a result of the recent freezing of the upper limits of legal aid for income and capital, 1·1 million people who would otherwise be eligible for legal aid are being left out and that there is nothing whatever in the Lord Chancellor's consultative paper to provide any compensation for those who will be disqualified from legal aid simply by saving? Will he please confirm that there is no policy of permanently freezing those upper limits?
    The Solicitor-General: There is no policy of permanently freezing the upper limits. Obviously, the non-increase in them this year will have some effect on the numbers who are eligible. The matters that are open for consideration in the consultation document offer opportunities for legal aid in areas where hitherto it has not been available. They include legal aid insurance, which is to be seen in some areas—property insurance policies sometimes include this —and should not be viewed narrowly.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about vacancy rates in the Crown prosecution service.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Over the past 12 months 315 lawyers have entered the service and vacancies have fallen from 22 to 13 per cent. Vacancies for administrative staff are 4 per cent.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer which demonstrates a dramatic improvement. What hope does he have that the other vacancies will be filled speedily?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. The trend is a positive one. It reflects not only the increased salaries available—they are highly competitive—but the improvement in the quality of career which the service offers. We shall continue with that, and I hope to see the service fully recruited in the short term.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that basically vacancies and recruitment problems happen to be in London and the surrounding areas? Does he further agree that were London to recruit at the same levels as Yorkshire, Manchester or many other areas, the service and the courts in London would be that much more enhanced? They are simply overworked in London.
    The Attorney-General: Yes, the hon. Gentleman, who has close knowledge of these matters, is right that London is certainly one of the worst areas—or parts of London are. Humberside is another bad area. We must analyse the reasons why. Advertising and the promotion of the service are now devolved to local areas, and they are making great strides. I hope that the improvement that we have noticed will continue. I think that it will.

    Children Act
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Attorney-General how he plans to deal with the changes in court procedure following the introduction of the Children Act 1990.
    The Solicitor-General: Last month family proceedings rules providing for new procedures in the High Court, county courts and magistrates courts were made. In relation to the Children Act, they are effectively identical.
    Mr. Hind: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the Children Act will provide more speedy and compassionate methods of dealing with all matters relating to children? There has been much controversy in recent months and years, such as that surrounding the case in the Orkneys. Does he accept that many members of the Bar are worried about the possible deleterious effect on the speed with which cases go through the courts unless the procedure is properly organised?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right to look forward to considerable benefits to child law from the implementation of the Children Act. It will provide a uniform system of law for all levels of court, enabling cases to be set at the right level—High Court, county court or magistrates court—as appropriate. The transitional problems are being carefully dealt with, and I have no doubt that the High Court will keep a close watch on the cases that currently come before it and those that will remain before it after the transitional period in October.

    Gulf War
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General if he has received any representations concerning the legality of weapons used by coalition forces in the Gulf war.
    The Attorney-General: I have received representations on this subject from the hon. Member and from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Attorney-General agree that the world community should consider carefully the use of those weapons, which had never before been used on the scale on which they were used in the Gulf war? They are not conventional weapons in the usual sense. They are weapons of mass slaughter which resulted in the deaths of between 100,000 and 200,000 conscripts and injury to 300,000 to 700,000. Is not it time that we viewed air fuel explosives, cluster bombs and daisy cutter bombs as an entirely new way of waging war which should be included, in the interest of the world community, in the inhumane weapons protocol? We must think carefully about the manufacture, sale and deployment of those terrible weapons.
    The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the future line taken by Britain in international legislation or conventions is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman particularised his question and mentioned air fuel explosives. He has asked that question before, and he knows that they have been used by only the United States in the Gulf war and only for the purpose of detonating minefields. They have never been used against personnel.
    On the larger issue, it must be recognised that there will be casualties if an aggressor occupies a country and the United Nations determines that force must be used as a last resort to throw it out. The responsibility for that lies with the aggressor.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to improve response time for aid to meet crisis situations.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Yes, we have an excellent record in responding to disasters, but we are always learning from experience. We are currently reviewing our overseas disaster management arrangements and those of the United Nations. Those reviews will be completed shortly.
    Mr. Pike: I recognise that time is crucial in a crisis or a disaster, but is the Minister satisfied that although the NHS crisis teams were made available on 1 April, they were still in the United Kingdom and not in Iraq a month later on 1 May? Does she have sufficient people in the crisis unit in her Department? Does she receive the necessary co-operation from other Departments to ensure that a speedy response is given?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I think the House knows, I was especially careful to ensure that if anyone went to the Gulf from the national health service as part of a volunteer team, they not only could do their work when they arrived there, but would be accepted by the recipient Government. Teams from other countries had problems which, fortunately, our teams did not encounter because of our preparation work. The people who went gave very good service.
    In this three-month period we have doubled the staff in our disaster relief unit. Future plans are for a different organisation, which will respond just as quickly and effectively.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to respond in double-quick time to the horrendous disaster that is unfolding in the Philippines following the awful volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo? Has she been able to consult her European Community partners or the United Nations agencies? The United States is clearly in a better position than we are, as it has military personnel on the spot, and the local Association of South-East Asia Nations powers are also there. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House, however, that the United Kingdom will do everything in its power to bring assistance to bear?
    Mrs. Chalker: We greatly sympathise with the people and Government of the Philippines, who have experienced yet another major natural disaster. The embassy told us today that the Government would be requesting assistance shortly, and we shall do all that we can to meet their specific needs.
    I should inform the House that Manila airport is currently closed. However, we have daily contact with our embassy, as the embassy has with the Government of the Philippines. We should not underestimate that Government's own capacity to handle the emergency, but we are ready to help.
    Sir David Steel: Is not the Minister concerned at continuing reports that aid is failing to get through to the populations who need it in parts of the Horn of Africa? Notwithstanding the long-term review that she is currently
    18
    undertaking, will she support the ad hoc re-establishment of the United Nations office for emergency operations in Africa, which was so successful in 1985–86? When the office was stood down in 1986, we were told that it could be re-established if the need arose. Surely that need has now arisen.
    Mrs. Chalker: A very successful meeting has been held between Jim Ingram of the World Food Programme and the leaders of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front in Addis about directing relief towards the pressure points and the ports of Africa. We are certainly prepared to consider the re-establishment of the UN office, if it is needed. Our current information is, however, that good news has been received, including that of the agreement in the past 48 hours to the air drop to Nasir in northern Sudan. Last week, I was instrumental in requesting that from the Government of Sudan.
    Sir Richard Luce: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the prompt action that she always takes when any emergency arises, but does she agree that there is no substitute for international machinery to deal with such emergencies? Both she and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have recommended action on this front; can she tell us what progress has been made?
    Mrs. Chalker: The Anglo-German initiative discussed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Herr Genscher on 9 June is already in being. It involves the appointment of a senior figure who would report directly to the UN Secretary General, to direct all relief measures within the UN system and to co-ordinate the relief work of the humanitarian agencies and Governments. We do not know yet who that figure will be; we do not even know whether the initiative will be accepted internationally. There is, however, general support for the idea that we and the German Government have presented.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that the crisis affecting refugees in Iraq is still unresolved? Has she seen the headlines in today's newspapers—for example,
    "Major's haven plan in tatters"
    in The Independent, and
    "Don't leave the Kurds"
    in the Daily Telegraph? Does she agree with the prediction that if the coalition forces and the United Nations do not guarantee a settlement, another million people will flee Iraq? Is she prepared for that event?
    Finally, what would the Minister say to the senior aid worker who, having just returned from Iraq, said:
    "The whole aid exercise has been completely wasted. If there is no artillery unit to hold the line against the Iraqi troops, the Kurds will run for their lives. They feel betrayed and they are terrified."?
    Mrs. Chalker: First, let us get the whole operation of save havens into perspective. We began the exercise in April, and phases 1 and 2 have been successfully completed, providing life-saving relief for people in the mountains and bringing them down into the safe havens. We are now working on phase 3, the aim of which is to give relief to Iraqi people in northern Iraq. That means re-integrating people into their own communities in Iraq, with protection. That is why the representatives of the Iraqi people have combined to form a central development committee, formed of the indigenous organisations, with three specialist sub-committees: one in engineering, one in agriculture and one in health. With the representatives of

    19
    the Kurdish Democratic party and the PUK—Patriotic Union of Kurdistan—working together, it will oversee what happens in the future. That is necessary because we have always agreed—right from the beginning—that allied troops would be deployed temporarily. We have taken no decision about the withdrawal of troops. We are in close touch with our allies and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is discussing the matter with his opposite numbers. I assure the House that, having successfully completed the first two phases, I shall ensure that other phases of the operation are successfully concluded.

    Horn of Africa
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit the Horn of Africa and Sudan; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: I would be prepared to visit the Horn of Africa again if it would assist the relief effort. At present, the World Food Programme is working to ensure that maximum use can be made of Port Sudan, Massawa and Assab.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I underline her obvious awareness of the horrendous starvation in the Horn of Africa? Will she say more about the visit of Mr. Jim Ingram to the area? What long-term measures can we support to provide food grown in the area, bearing in mind that unless people learn to grow their own food they will never overcome long-term starvation but will achieve only the short-term effect of being fed for the day?
    Mrs. Chalker: We should all congratulate Jim Ingram on his visit to Khartoum and Addis. He says that he has had the most positive response from the leaders of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democracy Front in respect of relieving the need for food, medicine and shelter. He has also been successful in getting the interim Goverment in Addis Ababa to agree to clear roads in the Gambella area of mines, which are preventing people from moving safely, and to agree to cross-border feeding. There has also been agreement that military convoys will accompany the food convoys to the east in Hararghe. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale,
    20
    Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), there will be a further follow up to the provision of food in Sudan, as well as the agreement to the air drops.

    Charities (VAT)
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the effect of VAT on charities dealing in famine and disaster relief.
    Mrs. Chalker: In 1991 we received four specific representations which raised the question of VAT as the primary issue. Some other representations raised the question with other issues. VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who amended the legislation in 1989 to ensure zero rating of charities' fund raising, including the sale of donated goods in charity shops.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept, however, that charities, especially third world charities, are tremendously concerned that if standardisation takes place throughout Europe, resulting in the loss of zero rating to the charities sector as a whole, some £500 million of income will be lost? For example, Oxfam fears a loss of £5 million. Will the Minister make strong representations to ensure that that does not take place across the board and that there are Europe-wide discussions to draw attention to the problems that loss of zero rating would present for charities?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have considered that matter and discussed it with several non-governmental organisations, including the Oxfam representatives on Merseyside. I assure the House that if the European Community were to challenge the United Kingdom legislation on the zero rating of sales of donated goods from charity shops and refunds of VAT on rents, we would resist. Should the European Community attempt to legislate further on the activities of charities, we would stongly defend their voluntary nature and independence. The hon. Gentleman has my word on that.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after the statement.

Local Government (Wales)
3.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government in Wales.
In my statement to the House on 23 April I announced my intention to publish a consultation paper about the local government structure in Wales. I am publishing that paper today in Welsh and English. It will be extensively distributed throughout Wales, and I wish to consult very widely on its content.
The case for the establishment of a system of unitary authorities throughout Wales has been put to me by many people, including those in the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts. I agree that we should now consider moving towards such a system. My consultation paper therefore sets out for public debate the considerations that must be borne in mind in determining the size and number of the new authorities.
We must look to create a structure that can deliver high-quality services efficiently and economically, whether those services are delivered directly by the authority itself or through contractual arrangements with another agency. Local services are vitally important to very many people, and we must not put delivery of those services at risk by proposals for reorganisation that are not fully thought through. But people do not look to their local authorities only as deliverers of services. They also want to see authorities that reflect, enhance and strengthen the local communities, which are such an important feature of Welsh life. During my discussions throughout Wales, the clear message that I have received has been that it is vital that the structure of local government that is produced is one with which the people of Wales can identify.
I am today presenting for public debate a number of possible arrangements for local government in Wales. Among these, I see particular attractions in a structure of 20 authorities illustrated in one of the maps set out for discussion; but I make it absolutely clear to the House that I have reached no final decisions and, before doing so, I propose to consult widely. I also repeat to the House what I say in the paper: it is wrong to start from a desired number of authorities and then try to fit service provision into that structure. Rather, the number of authorities, and their size, must flow from a careful balancing of all the various relevant considerations.
I should also say something about community councils. Whatever may be the outcome of those consultations, some of the new authorities may cover larger areas than do the present districts. We must ensure that this does not lead to a loss of responsiveness to local opinion. Community and town councils therefore have an important role as the voice of their communities to the wider world. I want to consider the case for developing that role within a new local government structure.
I am not today proposing any tight times scale for the reforms that I envisage. This is a vitally important matter and we must not be rushed into decisions. I also bear it in mind that local authorities will face a major task in implementing the council tax from 1993, but it is desirable that local authorities should be able to plan ahead effectively. I therefore intend, in the light of the comments I receive, to come forward early next year with firm proposals. But let me make one thing clear. I will not bring
22
forward any reorganisation unless I am satisfied that it is capable of bringing long-term benefits and improvements in efficiency. The real administrative cost of local authority services under the new arrangements must not be greater than under the existing structure, and the potential for real efficiency savings should be demonstrable. I should finally make clear that the paper makes no reference to the question of an assembly for Wales. The arguments that have been put to me have not been advanced with great force or unanimity, and they have failed to persuade me that there is any case for creating an assembly.
On the contrary, Wales has benefited considerably from having a Secretary of State with a voice in Cabinet and from the effective working relationships that have been established with and between central Government, local government and the private sector in Wales. In contrast, the result of creating an assembly would be a Welsh Office with no capacity for significant influence on central Government, and a Welsh executive authority detached from central Government and thus unable to argue the case for Wales where the real decisions are taken—at the heart of central Government.
Given a choice between a strong Secretary of State and an elected executive authority, the Government are in no doubt whatever that the interests of the people of Wales would be best served by maintenance of the present arrangements. They are reinforced in that view by the fact that the judgment of the 1979 referendum was the same—and by an overwhelming margin.
The consultation paper sets out our proposals on the way forward for local democracy in Wales. I believe that we should consider moving towards unitary authorities as the best foundation. The proper size and number of such authorities, however, are matters on which everybody will have a view. The paper sets out three suggestions, one of which I consider the most attractive. But all three are offered as a basis of consultation.
The paper that I am publishing today marks another important step in the Government's review of local government. I intend to consult widely and, in accordance with our Welsh tradition, proceed as far as possible by discussion and agreement with interested parties.
In Wales, we have a historic opportunity to build on the positive partnership between central and local government in the Principality, which is the envy of many other parts of the United Kingdom.
The challenge that faces us is to establish a structure of local government that will serve Wales well for many years to come. That is the target. I now want to consult the people of Wales on how best we may achieve that result, and I invite right hon. Members from all parties to contribute to that debate. I commend the consultation paper to the House.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State understand that Labour party policy is to retain the great office of Secretary of State for Wales? A Labour Premier, Harold Wilson, installed the great James Griffiths as the first Secretary of State for Wales, and Mr. Griffiths—then the Member of Parliament for Llanelli—established the Welsh Office. I remind the right hon. Gentleman also that Labour created the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, and gave to the Secretary of State the considerable powers contained in sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1975.

23
Is not the right hon. Gentleman in office because of Labour's great commitment to the governance of Wales? He is the last person to talk to us about the office of Secretary of State for Wales. His party was always hostile to proposals for a Department of State.
As to unitary authorities, I hope that the consultations will be more thorough and genuine than those on the poll tax. Has the Secretary of State considered establishing a commission? Does he accept that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and that we welcome the fact that he has accepted Labour's case for unitary authorities? Does he accept also that the number and boundaries of the unitary authorities should be determined by the Secretary of State only after appropriate and genuine consultation? A political decision would bring with it hints of gerrymandering, especially in the redrawing of boundaries in the south Wales valleys and in north-east Wales. I give the right hon. Gentleman a strong warning on that matter.
Why is the Secretary of State dividing the map of Wales on the advice of civil servants? We want to create a durable structure of local government, and to do that there must be genuine and extensive consultation with local communities, not a back-of-the envelope job that will satisfy the needs of the Conservative party manifesto. The Government have a tendency to legislate in haste and repent at leisure.
The Secretary of State's failure to come out in support of a regional government leaves his proposals unbalanced and the key problems unresolved. If the proposals aim at more effective, responsive local government, why is that principle not to be extended to the ever growing list of quangos in the right hon. Gentleman's gift? The many bodies appointed by the Secretary of State which exercise powers in Wales should be made more accountable to the people of Wales. There is one law for Whitehall and another for the town hall.
The Secretary of State's argument that a Welsh assembly would leave Wales isolated in Europe is nonsense. Our European partners have already recognised the value of decentralising, but the right hon. Gentleman is ready to consign Wales to the backwaters of Europe. Britain is the only country in the Common Market that does not have regional government. In the decades ahead the national boundaries of Britain will diminish in importance while regional and local identities and decisions will grow in importance.
We in Wales cannot afford to be left behind by the rest of Europe. Why, as today's Western Mail alleges, is the Secretary of State committing Wales to the dark ages? A Welsh assembly is a vital component of a thoroughgoing and durable reform of local government and will benefit democracy, accountability and economic development. The statement will satisfy no one. It is a retreat, it is timid, and it is a missed opportunity.
Mr. Hunt: I shall deal with the important announcement—it is worrying that it had to be an announcement—that a Labour Government would retain the post of Secretary of State for Wales.
Mr. John. P. Smith: The Labour party has had that on the record for two years.
Mr. Hunt: Why was it necessary for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to put it on the record,
24
as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has said? I shall also quote from the Western Mail which states:
"The Conservatives remain opposed to devolved assemblies. We think this is wrong, if consistent. But Labour's … cobbled-together proposals could seriously disadvantage Wales. 'Half-baked and half-hearted' is one recent description of the overall proposals, as they stand. We agree. They need to be re-examined."
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is saying not that they need to be re-examined, but that they have been misread.
Mr. Barry Jones: Read them.
Mr. Hunt: I have read them and I do not think for a moment that they recognise the importance of Wales's separate identity. The document that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside keeps waving acknowledges that only after the English regional equivalents have been created in the first term of a Labour Government—if one were elected—would a Labour Government proceed to establish elected regional governments in England and, in parallel, a Welsh assembly in Cardiff. They would regionalise Wales and regulate it to the same status as any region in England.
Secondly, the hon., Gentleman wanted the consultations to be more genuine than the consultations over the council tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax."]—more genuine than the consultations on the poll tax or community charge. I had the opportunity this morning of meeting the local authority associations and I was delighted to hear from them that they believe that our proposals for a council tax are just the sort of proposals on which can be built an efficient system of local government finance in Wales. I welcome the words of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. The hon. Gentleman may feel that the consultations were not genuine, but he created some of the problems by refusing to join the consultations. The other Opposition parties joined the consultation and I had interesting discussions with them, but the hon. Gentleman never came through the door of consultation. I hope that he will do so on this occasion.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked why we were not establishing a commission. He alleged that the Secretary of State was trying, on the back of an envelope, to gerrymander Wales. I would hardly be having consultations if that were my intention. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that we need to set up a commission—I do not know who would head it—to tell us how to reorganise the local government structure in Wales, he has not been listening to his colleagues in the Council of Welsh Districts, who believe that a commission is not necessary.
The hon. Gentleman then said that unitary authorities were Labour party policy. I would hardly have believed that when I first came to the House, given the debates that took place under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. Yet again, the hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite history.
Fifthly, the hon. Gentleman claimed that we would relegate ourselves to the backwaters of Europe, but the Welsh Office, under this Secretary of State and his predecessor, with other Ministers in the Welsh Office—in particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has received the most richly deserved Privy Councillorship that I can recall—has set up links with Baden-Wurttemberg, and is building the links with Lombardy,

25
Rhône-Alpes and Catalonia. We are not relegated to the backwaters of Europe. Furthermore, the Presidents and Prime Ministers of those regions wish that they had the opportunity that the Secretary of State has to sit in a national Cabinet. They do not have a seat in their national or federal Governments.
I have this to say about an assembly and devolution. I recall, and I reread just a few moments ago, an article written in 1976 by the Leader of the Opposition. It said:
"At the height of the most threatening economic crisis of our lifetime the Government is going to spend most of Parliament's time next year tearing the United Kingdom asunder … Could devolution, the very policy intended to bind the unity of the kingdom, actually turn the healthy cultural diversities into ugly national demarcations?"
For once in my life, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a statement on Scotland after this, followed by a rather busy day with a Committee stage and then an order. I will try to call all those hon. Members who are rising, but I ask them to ask brief questions and to ensure that they are questions and not comments.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for the broad principles that he has enunciated? Clearly, the detail will need discussion and debate. Does he share my delight at the welcome change in the Labour party, which will now apparently consult on the matter? That is as nice a change as the sudden and belated discovery of Europe by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Will my right hon. Friend accept that, at first sight, the proposals for a merger between Colwyn and Aberconwy, subject always to the review that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be having, seems to be very much along the right lines? The rest of the proposals will need examination and consultation. Will he also accept that there will be a general welcome for the idea of an enhanced role for the community councils?
Mr. Hunt: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the agreement of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to enter the consultations on the future structure of local government. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, as I did over the consultations on local government finance, that he has a standing invitation to come to see me and to bring any of his right hon. and hon. Friends with him so that they can tell me what they believe should be the future structure of local government. I greatly welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman will do that and I look forward to seeing him on that basis as soon as possible. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), I greatly welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind about consultations and that he will enter them in a meaningful way.
When the details of the proposed arrangements are looked into, they will strike a chord. I have sought to ensure that we recognise local communities and local identities, which is why, in certain instances, it is possible to cross existing county boundaries and why it is possible to look at the whole question of town and community councils as providing a basis on which we can move forward.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Although I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has produced a Green Paper, which is a good thing from the point of view of consultation, does he agree that there is general political agreement that unitary authorities are the answer in Wales? I am extremely disappointed that he has not brought forward proposals for a Welsh assembly. Why can the President of France, the President of the United States and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland all head countries that have administrations that may not coincide with them politically and yet they still get on with the job? Surely the Secretary of State should embrace the idea of a truly democratically elected assembly—elected by proportional representation. His post would not necessarily be abolished in those circumstances, which would abolish his main opposition to the proposal for a Welsh assembly. He is missing a huge opportunity by not having a Welsh assembly that is truly democratically elected.
Mr. Hunt: The most interesting phrase in that explanation of Liberal Democrat policy was:
"His post would not necessarily be abolished."
The hon. Gentleman recognises, as I do, the serious problems in the European comparisons that he made. He will recognise that the Presidents or Prime Ministers of, for example, Baden-Wurttemberg, Lombardy, Catalonia and Rhone-Alpes do not sit in their national Cabinets. That is the biggest difference. I want us to take every possible advantage of a position that has been used to good effect by my predecessors, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and by his predecessor Lord Crickhowell to promote the interests of Wales. That advantage would be lost if we moved in the direction that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Alan Williams: I have long believed in the principle of unitary authorities and I welcome that part of the statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Having enjoyed a brief "Hear, hear" from a couple of colleagues, may I ensure universal disapproval in the Chamber by putting another proposition to the Secretary of State? While he carries out his consultations on the form and powers related to a unitary authority, rather than ruling out altogether the prospect of an assembly, why does not he consider the possibility of putting the ideas to the people of Wales concurrently? While we are carrying out our discussions and he is carrying out his, the people of Wales will have a say on whether they want an assembly.
Mr. Hunt: I was not aware that, under the Labour party's proposals, the proposal for a Welsh assembly would be put again to the people of Wales. It is incumbent on those who seek to ride roughshod over the result of the referendum to put forward proposals again to the people of Wales. As I propose to comply with the result of the referendum, I hardly believe that it is necessary for me to put a re-endorsement to the people of Wales.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: May I tell my right hon. Friend that his recognition of the fact that the sterile debate about a regional assembly for Wales has produced no new ideas has received the warmest response in Wales because most of the people of Wales would regard such a remote body—which would cost us £1 million a week before it took any action at all—as wanton irrelevance? Instead, the proposal for single-tier councils is most welcome, especially in the capital city of Wales, as those

27
councils will be much more cost-effective and will be closer to the people whom they should represent. Having said that, may I urge my right hon. Friend to give his unhurried consideration to the idea of expanding Wales's premier parliamentary body, the Welsh Grant Committee, to include more of the leaders of the Welsh economy, and to turning that committee into a forum which, under his chairmanship, can better discuss how Wales may continue to move forward?
Mr. Hunt: On the first point, I agree with my hon. Friend. As I believe I have made clear, the arguments that I have heard have not persuaded me that there is any case for an assembly for Wales. I believe that the people of Wales benefit from having a Secretary of State with a voice in Cabinet. The people of Wales voted strongly against an assembly in 1979. I have seen no good evidence to suggest that they have changed their view and they are wise not to have done so.
My hon. Friend's proposal for the Welsh Grant Committee is a matter for that committee, and for others, to consider but it is certainly worthy of further consideration.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that we are not surprised to hear that he does not want a Welsh assembly, given that 12 years of Tory Government have turned us into the most centralised state in western Europe—far more centralised even than France?
I think that most people would agree with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for unitary authorities. Does he agree that community councils, which he mentioned, will have to be strengthened if we are to have unitary authorities and that the Local Government Act 1972, which did not put them on a proper basis, needs to be changed or repealed so that they are placed on such a basis and can represent their communities?
Mr. Hunt: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should consider the whole question of town and community councils. I have gone out of my way to make it clear that I want such councils to be part of the consultation process and I am arranging for a copy of the consultation paper to be sent today to every community and town council throughout Wales. I very much want to hear from those councils and from those with ideas about the sort of role that they could play in the new local government structure.
Mr. Keith Raffan: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to a system of unitary authorities, I deeply regret the fact that he has ruled out support for a Welsh assembly. He has said that he will consider the establishment of a body to co-ordinate economic strategy and other matters in Wales. Will he elaborate on that and tell the House whether, in his view, such a body would be a debating forum, what it would be allowed to discuss, how many members it would have, where those members would be drawn from and whether they would include Members of Parliament?
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has made no secret of his own particular opinions about a Welsh assembly; indeed, he has voiced them in the Chamber before now.
28
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, let me explain that the Council of Welsh Districts recently presented me with a proposal for a Welsh economic forum to improve collaboration and partnership between all the bodies involved in economic regeneration. I was impressed by the council's argument that there was a role for a more structured discussion on economic matters. With the training and enterprise councils now on stream, and with the establishment of new funding councils for further education—and for higher education in future—there is also a need to ensure that there is the closest possible contact between all those involved in education and training and in the business sector. I shall therefore soon be consulting the various bodies that might be involved—the development agencies, the TECs, representatives of local government and of the education world, CBI Wales and the Welsh TUC—to discuss how matters may best be taken forward. I have asked my team at the Welsh Office to give the matter high priority.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Does the Secretary of State agree that, during his short period in office, we have seen the most amazing transformation in the political structures of eastern Europe—a process of democratisation brought about by peaceful protest? In the light of his intransigence over the issue of a Welsh assembly, what hope is he giving to the people of Wales—the young people of Wales especially—that, in future, they will be living in a society, and in a country, which is less bureaucratic, less centralised and more democratic?
Mr. Hunt: I recognise the significance of the hon. Gentleman's point. I want to establish a very effective local government structure in Wales. I want our young people to fly high in their own land. I do not want them to move out of Wales. I want to give them every possible opportunity to stay in Wales and fly high there. I am aware of the local government structure in central and eastern Europe.
However, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) will recognise that there is no similarity between the Welsh position and the regions in central and eastern European countries, because the Welsh have a Secretary of State sitting in the national Cabinet. If the hon. Member praises the local government structure in Poland, will he please also pay tribute to the fact that I went out there and helped them to set it up?
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the linchpin of the consensus that existed on the issue in Wales was the question of an elected assembly, a proposal put forward by the district councils, the county councils in Wales and every political party in Wales except the Conservative party? Why can we have elected democracy on a community level, on a district or county level and on a Westminster or European level, but no democratic answerability for the £5,000 million—£100 million a week—that the Secretary of State for Wales spends? Why can we not have answerability for that to the people of Wales?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman feels enormously strongly about that issue and he puts his view to me in public and in private on every possible and conceivable occasion. I pay tribute to him for that. However, I am

29
accountable in this Chamber. I am accountable for the range of responsibilities that I have as Secretary of State. The real accountability lies in the mother of Parliaments.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in 1974, when local government was reorganised, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) suggested that county names would not change when the local authority names changed? I was born in Glamorganshire whose name has changed three times and may even be wiped off the map if we do not do something positive about it. Has my right hon. Friend any proposals to encourage the use of the old county names with regard to postal districts?
Mr. Hunt: During my consultations in Wales I have discovered a strong view in certain parts of Wales that people want some historic names and titles to return. I make it clear that I will listen to those views very carefully in the consultation process.
Mr. John P. Smith: I was directly involved in the widest ever consultation on this subject in Wales between 1988 and 1990 with the working party of the Welsh Labour party. Is the Secretary of State aware that I find it absolutely incomprehensible that he has today ruled out the possibility of regional government as well as the possibility of a strong Secretary of State for Wales?
Mr. Hunt: I must make it absolutely clear that I totally reject the Labour party's proposals. The Labour party proposes that, with the creation of a Welsh assembly, the role of the Secretary of State would be to scrutinise parliamentary legislation to consider its relevance to Wales and to arrange for modifications where appropriate. I had always thought that scrutiny and modification of legislation were matters for this House rather than for a Secretary of State. Labour's proposals would limit the role of the Secretary of State for Wales
"to promoting Welsh interest abroad."
Is that really an adequate job description for a Cabinet Minister?
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State help me as I am having difficulty in that I am suffering from a little deja vu? Are we approaching 1992 or are we back in 1962? It appears that the Secretary of State has produced what is probably the most backward-looking document in the history of post-war Welsh politics. Does he accept that all his reference points hark back to 1979 and he is now apparently proposing to establish a Welsh economic council the like of which was established by a Labour Government back in the 1960s? Which of our esteemed colleagues in European Governments such as the Ministers of Baden-Württemberg or Catalonia are about to resign their democratic posts in order to join the United Kingdom Cabinet?
Mr. Hunt: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, in my discussions with our regional counterparts in the important motor regions they constantly said how much they envy the fact that we have a Secretary of State for Wales who sits in the United Kingdom Cabinet. They would like to sit not in the United Kingdom Cabinet but in their own federal or national Cabinet.
On looking back, I thought that I had turned my mind against looking back to the result of the 1979 referendum.
30
Opposition parties would have us go back to before that referendum decision. I believe that we must pay attention to the result of that referendum, which emphatically rejected the idea of a Welsh assembly.
Mr. John Butcher: As part of his consultation, will my right hon. Friend undertake to meet Welsh members of the Association of British Counties, an organisation which is dedicated to the restoration and retention where possible of traditional county names and historical counties? Will he welcome the use of county names such as Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Monmouth? Wherever possible, unitary authorities, which Opposition Members would welcome, should coincide also with their traditional boundaries of yesteryear.
Mr. Hunt: Of course I shall meet that body, and I should be particularly pleased if my hon. Friend came with me. The preferred option that I have put forward establishes the unitary authority not only of Ynys Môn but of Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion, Carmarthen, Brecon and Radnor, Montgomeryshire, Monmouth and several others. That is recognition of the strength of the local communities and the wish to see such a unitary authority established.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there no humility on the Government Benches? The Secretary of State appears to be implying that the Conservative party is best equipped, as indeed occurred with the poll tax, to deal with the bungled messes of previous Conservative Governments on unitary authorities. As for his tentative proposal for a Welsh economic forum, is the Secretary of State aware that Lord Crickhowell, one of his predecessors, proposed such a body in 1979, which then went to sleep, and that much has happened since? We have had 12 years of Conservative centralisation so that now only 8 per cent. of local government revenue in Wales is from a local tax base. We have had the European dimension, and we have had quangos packed with Tory placemen. The right hon. Gentleman's idea would be rejected as both irrelevant and impertinent. If the Secretary of State is really concerned about consultation, will we have an opportunity for a full day's debate on the issue in the House before the summer recess?
Mr. Hunt: Time for a debate is certainly not a matter for me. I take up the hon. Gentleman on describing as impertinent the proposal that I have just welcomed from the Council of Welsh Districts. Perhaps he should talk to his colleagues in the Council of Welsh Districts whom I met earlier today and who put to me very strongly the need for that body. I have said that I recognise that they have a case, and I wish to examine the proposals further. However, I am not looking back. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not think that the Council of Welsh Districts spends its time looking back, because I do not believe that it does.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does not the Secretary of State observe that changes in Welsh democracy over the past 10 years have been the mirror image of what has happened in eastern Europe? In eastern Europe, the old unelected nomenklaturas of communists are losing their powers, while genuinely elected bodies are gaining powers through democracy. In Wales, the reverse has been true. Our elected councils have lost power,

31
influence and resources while non-elected quangos are getting greater power, being stuffed by representatives of the Conservative party and other card-carrying fellow travellers. Those groups are entirely undemocratic.
Will the Secretary of State observe also that the people of Newport rejected the reorganisation by the Conservative party in the 1970s because they wanted a unitary authority? They also want a unitary authority now and look forward to its coming about by a referendum of all the people of Wales in the next general election.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has not read the document. He does not realise what is proposed. I should have thought that, rather than urge me to set up an assembly in Cardiff to run Newport, he should welcome the fact that I propose a unitary authority for Newport.
Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Wyn Roberts—I mean Mr. Win Griffiths.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I would not wish to have all the honours that have been bestowed upon the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts).
Given the great emphasis that the Secretary of State has placed on consultation, will he guarantee, first, that if a definite view emerges from the consultation, that will be the one that he will support and, secondly, if it becomes clear during the consultation that there is a desire for a Welsh assembly, whatever might be its exact powers and authority, the right hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the view of the organisations that he has consulted and will support it himself?
Mr. Hunt: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about honours, we all note his bid to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) in seeking recognition. On the main burden of what he said, how on earth can I say in advance whether I would follow one of the views that emerges in the consultation or another? I very much look forward to hearing the views. I must then decide and lay proposals before the House.
Mr. Peter Hain: While I welcome the Secretary of State's option, which keeps Neath separate from the Swansea conurbation, will the right hon. Gentleman concede that in proposing an economic forum to oversee the strategic economic policy affecting Wales, he is conceding the case for a strategic view that could apply equally to transport, planning and other matters? Does he further agree that such a strategic view is best exercised not by a non-elected unaccountable quango but by an elected assembly for Wales, without which Wales will go naked into Europe as it is integrated into Europe?
Mr. Hunt: I am never quite sure what the Labour party is proposing, because one of its proposals is for Members of Parliament to sit in an assembly in Cardiff with an equal number of local councillors. That is the latest proposal for a Welsh assembly that I have received from the Assembly of Welsh Counties. I am not sure how that would sit easily with the democratic accountability of the Government in this place. However, I am delighted that, rather than spending all his time urging that Neath should be ruled from Cardiff, the hon. Gentleman has welcomed my proposals for Neath.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As one of the civil servants at the Welsh Office who, in 1972, wasted a dreary 12 months of his life assisting the then Conservative Secretary of State with the present unpopular two-tier structure for local government—[Interruption.] I take no responsibility for it. That belongs with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) who introduced the two-tier structure for local government, which the Conservatives now say is wrong. However, may I give full marks to this Secretary of State for reversing the mistakes of the previous Conservative Secretary of State who devised the two-tier structure, despite the advice of the civil servants of the time? His proposal for 20 single-tier authorities—I may be out by one; the figure may be 21—is a sound idea.
Turning to the right hon. Gentleman's views about a Welsh assembly, however, there is absolutely no agreement on that matter between him and me and most other people in Wales. Wales does not want more quangos, but what is now proposed is some kind of quango that will sit on top of all the other quangos—a super Welsh quango or what one could call a llango. One reason that the right hon. Gentleman does not want a Welsh assembly is that he knows that his party could never win it.
Mr. Hunt: May I urge the hon. Gentleman to spell for the benefit of Hansard the new word that he has just used? I have heard about the hon. Gentleman's previous employment at the Welsh Office. Whenever I raise that subject, people tend to talk in hushed whispers and now I know why. May I ask the hon. Gentleman which one he thinks that I missed out of the 20, and may I thank him for having welcomed the proposals in general?
Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State really think that the consultation process is anything other than a sham? This afternoon he told my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that he would like to consult him about these matters, yet he has also this afternoon rejected "The future of local government in Wales", which is the Labour party's proposal. How can the consultation exercise be anything other than a sham?
Does not the Secretary of State also agree that, before he mentions the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in 1979, he might well recall his own remarks about the poll tax during the past few years? Does he agree that the only recent example of consultation about local government reform and finance in Wales in the past few years was about the poll tax and that the last thing that we want is a re-run of that appalling crisis?
Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman puts my remarks on a par with the previous remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. However, I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. Friend went much further in rejecting the concept of a Welsh assembly. I had not realised that the document to which he referred had been endorsed as official Labour party policy. If that is true, I am very worried.
If I recall correctly, the Leader of the Opposition constantly made a point with which I find myself in agreement. He said:
"Conflicts are likely to arise every time the Welsh … assembly introduces any significant economic, political or social change, every time that a nationalised industry takes an important spending decision with UK-wide implications."

33
Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition in the Morning Star on 25 February 1976, just before I entered the House. I find myself in entire agreement with them. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman comes to see me for consultation, he will put aside some of the more rarefied proposals that he and his party have made and will engage in meaningful and genuine consultation.
Mr. Speaker: We are now to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the statement.
Mr. Clarke: It is about the statement.
Mr. Speaker: Let us have the statement first arid then I will take the point of order.
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If a matter of order arises from the statement, I will hear the point of order but let us have the statement first.

Local Government (Scotland)
4.23 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the structure of local government in Scotland.
In my statement to the House on 23 April I said that there would be separate consultation on the structure of local government in Scotland. As the first stage of that process I am publishing today a consultation paper. A wide range of interests will receive copies of the paper, and I look forward to receiving comments on it.
I believe that the time is right for a move to a single tier of unitary authorities throughout Scotland and the consultation paper explains why I take this view. It describes the many changes which have taken place in local government since Lord Wheatley's commission presented its report in 1969 and since the subsequent establishment of our present two-tier system in 1975. It sets out the case for change and the case for a single tier. It also seeks to establish the principles upon which the new system should be based. It invites views on these and on a range of other issues, including how we can minimise the costs and disruption of reform. In order to allow time for these important matters to be considered properly, the consultation period will last until 31 October.
There are good arguments of principle for single-tier local government, and in my view the time is now ripe to make the change. A single tier of local government is more readily understood than two tiers, which create confusion about who is responsible for what. That inevitably clouds accountability. Avoiding the overlap also cuts out a degree of duplication and waste. It is also clear that some regional councils are seen as too large and remote from the communities that they serve, while allegiances to the old counties remain strong in some areas. A single-tier system will be simpler, clearer and more local. As the role of local government evolves, now is the time to make the change. This paper sets out the case for reform, and the principles on which it should be based.
As the paper makes clear, this is a genuine consultation exercise and it will not be rushed. I intend to consider very carefully the comments received in response to this paper before moving on to the next stage which will seek to identify the options for change, establish what the new structure should be and whether any changes in the management and organisation of the new authorities are desirable or necessary.
I have received representations arguing in favour of an independent commission to advise on structural change. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has concluded that this is the appropriate way forward for the circumstances of England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales takes a different view in considering the needs of the Principality, as we have just heard. My approach is tailored to Scottish circumstances. If consultees wish to express views on how the next stage of the exercise should be conducted in order to achieve the best and most informed result, I should be happy to consider them, but I am not at present persuaded that an advisory commission is necessary.
I believe that the proposal of a move to single tier and the principles outlined in this paper will command widespread support throughout Scotland. All of the main

35
Scottish parties now support a single-tier system for local government. Some, of course, see it only as an adjunct to a Scottish assembly. I reject the argument that local government reform is necessary only if there is to be a constitutional upheaval off that kind. I am not prepared to debase the currency of local government by treating its reform simply as a by-product of the assembly debate. I view local government reform as a major and separate issue in its own right which requires—and will receive from us—thorough and careful examination. I very much hope that all those with an interest in local government in Scotland and who ought to have local government's interests at heart will play a full and constructive part in the consultative process.
At the end of the process we intend to ensure that the new local government system which emerges is strong, efficient, and cost-effective. We intend to ensure that it is one with which the people of Scotland can identify. We intend to ensure that it will stand the test of time.
The consultation paper I am publishing today takes an important step along that road. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Perhaps I should start with praise. This document is less damaging in itself than many that have gone before simply because it says so little. If hon. Members wish to know that there are 0·02 people per hectare in the area of Sutherland district council as against 35 people per hectare in Glasgow, the document will be compulsory reading. It also contains two maps—one that gives us the boundaries of the existing district councils, and another that gives us the boundaries of the existing regional councils—just in case hon. Members and other interested bodies are unaware of them.
We learn from the consultative paper that the Secretary of State is in favour of truth, decency and honour. He wants local authorities firmly rooted in the democratic tradition, capable of discharging their functions effectively and efficiently and accountable to their electorate. Who will quarrel with that? Will the Secretary of State note that local government would be in a far better state if he and his colleagues had paid any heed to these principles in recent years? The Labour party believes that there is a case for one-tier, all-purpose authorities, but in a wider context which includes a Scottish parliament, controlling Scotland's domestic affairs.
Why is the Minister so arrogant in asserting that there is a case for democratic change everywhere but not in the way that the House deals with Scotland's business? The Secretary of State claims that he is not prepared to debase the currency of local government by taking a broader view of the need for change. What cheek, given the damaging vendetta that he has conducted against councils for so many years.
From what I have been able to gather, to make anything of the document, I suspect it will be necessary to read between the lines. Does not the Secretary of State accept that many will look with scepticism at a consultation paper that assumes that local government either must or should lose responsibility for economic planning to local enterprise companies, that housing will largely pass to Government quangos and that education will become more and more marginal as schools opt out? Does not the Secretary of State accept that that is not a
36
view compatible with any faith in local democracy? Does he not accept that it would be wrong to use reform as a cover for stripping local government of important functions that ought to be under democratic control?
I gather that there is only one reference in the document to boundaries. Is it significant that it refers to the four cities being reborn as unitary authorities? Does that represent the Government's thinking, at least at the preliminary stage? Does the reference to joint arrangements, covering services such as the police, fire, water and sewerage, commit the Government to the high-risk exercise of joint boards, and does that rule out the threat of, for example, a national police service?
Will the Secretary of State note that there is strong support for the principle of an independent body to review the facts, sift through the arguments and set out the options? The Labour party believes that the Wheatley precedent is a good one and is in no way undermined by the fact that some of the original recommendations did not survive political debate. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that without such an independent element the whole exercise may be seen as partial and partisan? I remind the Secretary of State that an independent commission is supported not just by the Opposition parties in the House but by councils of every political hue.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) started his remarks by giving praise, faint but discernible, and gave with approbation a number of quotations from the White Paper. I welcome his support for a number of the principles we have set out in the White Paper. I also welcome his specific and almost unqualified statement of belief in single-tier local authorities. That belief had an important qualification because he wanted to establish another tier over and above those local authorities—a tax-raising assembly based in Edinburgh. That would not make local government more local, nor would it be devolution; it would be centralisation of local government and contrary to what we are trying to do.
I believe that local government should be considered on its own merits. We should be concerned with the health and future of local government, as is demonstrated by the White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman related one or two changing roles in local authorities that I could not recognise. Whether they are Labour party policy I do not know. We are consulting on local government and we shall be interested in any proposals on the changing functions for local authorities. It is true that their role is changing into one of enabling others to deliver services rather than at their own hand.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cities being unitary authorities and I accept that that is a probable outcome, n6but I am open to consultation. I shall be interested to hear what submissions are made in the course of the consultation period.
The hon Gentleman asked me whether we were contemplating the use of joint boards for the police or a national police service. It is unlikely that we would reach a conclusion in favour of a national police service. I cannot think of any service at present delivered by local authorities that could be better delivered on a national basis.
On the question of a commission, I believe, as I said in my statement, that what is right for Scotland is not

37
necessarily what is right for the much more complex, diffuse and diverse situation in England. I do not believe that a commission is necessary as part of the consultation process, but I am willing to listen to any proposals on how we may seek advice on elements of our proposals as we develop them through consultation on the White Paper and future consultation.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—
Mr. John Home Robertson: And for the Scottish National party.
Mr. Kirkwood: By default for the SNP as its members are not here.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: And for the Tories?
Mr. Kirkwood: I will not speak for them.
My party welcomes the opportunity to take part in the consultations. Will the Secretary of State categorically state that the Government believe that local government is more than just a collection of structures and functions? It has a fundamentally important role in providing local communities with an effective, democratic voice. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that that will not be prejudiced in the course of the consultations?
It seems nonsensical to commence consultation on determining the structure of local government when we have just concluded the consultation process on finance. No doubt after that we shall consider the functions of local government. It would be much better to have a more coherent, all-in approach to the reform of local government.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will take cognisance of any submissions on the system of elections for the structures of the new authorities and that proportional representation will be part of that system?
The tone of the right hon. Gentleman's statement is quite different from the statements for England and Wales. He appears to be more inflexible about single-tier authorities. If a case is made for local variations in different parts of Scotland, will he assure us that he will give urgent consideration to that approach in the course of the consultation?
Mr. Lang: I am sure that the proposals in the White Paper and my statement are not inflexible. Flexibility is the keynote to our approach. We believe that what is right for one part of Scotland is not necessarily right for another part of Scotland in terms of the size and scale of the country.
We want to establish the kind of local authority structure that best meets the local aspirations of people all over the country. We want to establish a local authority with which the people can identify and to which they can give their loyalty. I believe that the single-tier approach is the best way to remove the duplication, confusion and remoteness of local government that prevents such identification and loyalty now.
I agree that local authorities should represent a local, democratic voice. I believe that that will develop through the kind of single-tier, all-purpose authorities that we are contemplating.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of an all-in approach. Any aspect that is not specifically mentioned in the consultation
38
paper on which he feels it is important to submit views will be welcome, either during this consultation process or later when we have refined our views more specifically. That would include the question of election, on which he touched.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, far from being inflexible, we are anxious to have an extended consultation process during which we shall take serious cognisance of all submissions.
Mr. Robert Hughes: In his statement the Secretary of State said that he was not prepared to debase local government. Does he realise that that comes ill from him when his Government have denigrated local government at almost every stage since they took office in 1979? If he genuinely wants proper consultations, why is he not prepared to have a proper, independent commission, as there is no way in which we can trust the Government, who made such a botch of the poll tax? Given the hostility to local government, how can we be sure that there will be a proper, independent evaluation of the submissions from local government? If local government is to be restructured, why does he not consider it in the context of an elected Scottish assembly which can properly take account of the views of the people of Scotland?
Mr. Lang: I have already made it clear that a Scottish assembly would not make local government more local, but would centralise it. An assembly would take power and integrity from local government. It is absolutely untrue to say that we have denigrated local government. We have consistently sought to strengthen it. The move to a single tier of local government will create stronger, more free-standing and more integrated local authorities throughout Scotland.
On whether a commission is appropriate, I have said that I am willing to consider representations on what sort of advisory body we should look to for further advice later in the consultation process. I see no function now for a commission such as that which is being set up for England. The Labour party's proposals in that regard would be more convincing if I had heard one Member just once promise to set up any sort of advisory commission on its proposal for a Scottish assembly.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: During the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland I wrote a short book about how community councils might work. May I immodestly suggest to my right hon. Friend that it might repay him to have a quick look at it because some of the ideas remain valid? Speaking from the south-east of England, as I do now, it is tempting for many of us to welcome any device which would diminish the number of interventions from Scottish Members in this place, but I welcome my right hon. Friend's resistance to the creation of a tax-raising assembly.
I was glad to hear him say firmly—I hope he will repeat it—that the principles that he is applying in Scotland do not necessarily apply throughout the United Kingdom. In Kent, in particular, there is a strong case for considering a two-tier local authority.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for my proposals for Scotland. I shall certainly seek to track down and learn from his writings on this matter, particularly given his former distinguished career

39
in the Scottish Office. I appreciate that the circumstances of Kent are different from those of much of Scotland. I agree that what is important is that we find the right solution for each part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State realise that no amount of reshuffling the existing structure of local government will make the Conservative party acceptable to the Scottish people? Does he agree that a commission of inquiry would be appropriate because it could take account of the views of the people, the councillors who run the existing local government structure, and the many who work for local government? Why does he not seek a consensus? Is it that consensus is not part of the language of Majorism?
Mr. Lang: I certainly seek a consensus—a consensus behind the proposals that I am offering to the House today. As we have the support of the Labour Front Bench, I believe that we have the makings of a consensus for a single tier of all-purpose authorities. We are consulting widely. We are sending the consultation paper to Scottish Members, political parties, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, public bodies, trade unions, public agencies, industrial and commercial bodies, churches, professional bodies and others. I look forward to receiving their views and those of individuals and other bodies.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his arguments are weakened because he has been a member of a Government who for the past 12 years have been openly hostile to local government and local democracy? Although he has told the House that he wants to have the maximum consultation—we accept that—does not he realise that the Scottish people do not trust him and his party? They believe that any form of local government to emerge would be gerrymandered. The way to overcome that difficulty is to have an independent inquiry to make recommendations on the future structure of local government in Scotland.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should not judge the Conservative party by the record of the Labour Government in the late 1970s, which gerrymandered the parliamentary constituency boundaries. We shall consult openly, freely and extensively, and take account of recommendations to obtain the best system that will be durable and will be good for Scotland for many years to come.
Sir David Steel: The Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish nationalists decided to opt out of the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. They seem to be opting out of the work of the House of Commons as none of them is present to participate in this discussion.
Why has the Secretary of State thought it necessary to take a side swipe at the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention? From the tone of his statement, I infer that no legislation on this matter will be introduced before the next election. After that, it would be much more sensible to remit the matter to a Scottish parliament.
Mr. Lang: Far from taking a side swipe at the Scottish Constitutional Convention, I never mentioned it. I do not
40
regard it as a body that could be a valuable source of advice for this exercise. Its main concern seems to be to represent the interests of the Labour party and to string along a few Liberal Members with loose talk about proportional representation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right. We do not plan to rush the legislation. It will take a few years to legislate and to get the systems up and running. That is right, because it is important that the system should stand the test of time.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: With regard to paragraph 21 of the consultative paper, if the majority of Scots are opposed to compulsory competitive tendering, will the Secretary of State drop that proposal from the Scottish legislation? If not, what is the point of consulting anyone about anything if he refuses to listen to the voices?
Considering the low level of representation of women in Scottish local government, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which women's organisations he intends to consult about the proposals? If he had gone through the routine list of organisations, he would have observed that none represents even a majority of women, although there are women on particular groups such as the trade unions. I would appreciate it if he would widen his ideas about consultation.
Mr. Lang: If the hon. Lady suggests specific women's organisations, I shall be willing to consider them. They may fall under the headings that I described. She answered her own question by pointing out that women are on many of the bodies. Indeed, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is led by a woman.
On competitive tendering, we intend to weigh the submissions that we receive and not just count them.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The timetable for consultations ends in October. What timetable do the Government have in mind for implementing their proposals? Why does the Secretary of State have so little faith in the proposals, given that there is probably wide acceptance of the case for single-tier local government? Why will he not have an independent commission? Why does the consultative paper hide behind the Wheatley commission and the Stodart committee? I was a member of the Stodart committee, and I remind the Secretary of State of its limited remit. For example, we were prevented from making a recommendation on the excellent evidence that we received from Rutherglen and Cambuslang. They could not understand why they were part of the Glasgow district, yet other areas, such as Eastwood and Bearsden, had autonomy.
Does the Secretary of State fear the response of the Scottish people? Why is he so blinkered about Europe? Why is the review separate from the review of local government finance? Does he accept that, if he is prepared to push ahead with Government thinking and disregard overwhelming Scottish opinion, that will enhance and not reduce the case for a Scottish parliament?
Mr. Lang: I do not accept that the case for a Scottish assembly would be enhanced. One reason why we are contemplating the abolition of some of the larger local authorities is their remoteness. We would not abolish Strathclyde, which covers half the country, to reduce remoteness and then create another body that covered the whole country.

41
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the terms of reference of the Stodart committee were limited and restrictive. Nevertheless, much useful work was done, which remains open to us. The work of the Wheatley commission is also available to us. We can examine and scrutinise the building blocks that it established.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the timetable. I do not want to be held firmly to a timetable, because events can alter it, but we contemplate introducing legislation in the 1993–94 Session and the new system being up and running by 1996.
Mr. Mike Watson: Why is the Secretary of State afraid of an independent commission? He mentioned in his statement the Wheatley commission of 1969, which produced the proposals for local government that we have today. Is he afraid that if he were to establish a commission he would be obliged to pack it with placemen and placewomen to ensure that he achieved the result that he wanted, as he had to do with the health boards and college governors in recent years?
Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Secretary of State to talk in his statement and in the booklet about accountability when he and his Front-Bench colleagues are not accountable to the people of Scotland? The Conservatives have been flatly rejected in general elections for the past 36 years. Accountability exists in Scottish local government and is not one of the reasons for moving to a unitary authority.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the proposals south of the border. The commission would be an advisory body, and its recommendations would not be binding on the Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to advisory bodies and the advice that we may need as we proceed to the more detailed proposals. We shall consider that nearer the time, and I shall be open to suggestions.
On accountability, I believe that single-tier, all-purpose local authorities create stronger, more direct accountability than the present diffuse system of two-tier authorities that are remote and duplicate and confuse the source of services.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State has a brass neck talking about debasing local government after the damage that he has done in his present position as Secretary of State and previously as Minister of State responsible for local government finance. The relationship between local authorities and central Government in Scotland has never been worse than it is now.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that no argument could convince him of the need for a Scottish assembly or a Scottish parliament because he does not have faith in the people of Scotland to govern themselves and run their own affairs? Will he confirm that, although his statement is technically right, the new system of local government that came into being in 1975 was based on the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 introduced by the Conservative Government of 1970–74?
Much of what the Secretary of State is proposing today was proposed by my former colleagues, such as Bruce Milian. In Committee, he made it clear that Strathclyde was too big, and he submitted an amendment to divide it into four sub-regions. That amendment was swept aside by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who was
42
the junior Minister on the Committee. The local authority variation introduced by the late John Mackintosh was also contemptuously swept aside by the right hon. Member for Ayr. It comes ill from a Tory Government to criticise Scottish local government in that way.
May I ask the Secretary of State—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be engaging in a debate. I am told that the matter will be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow; that will provide the hon. Gentleman with the opportunity that he wants. He has been on his feet a long time, and I think that he has probably asked his question already.
Mr. Ewing: I simply ask the Secretary of State for a commitment that he will not, in any circumstances, further reduce the number of local councillors in Scotland, whatever system emerges. Local government becomes less local as a result of such action. That is what happened following the reorganisation in which the number of councillors was halved.
Mr. Lang: I look forward to hearing part two of the hon. Gentleman's speech either tomorrow or on Thursday.
I am not willing to give the hon. Gentleman any commitment about the number of councillors, especially before the start of the consultation about that very matter.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's relations with local authorities, his memory must be defective, or at least selective. I recall the relationship between the last Labour Government and local government, and the powers that that Government used to control it. I also recall their dramatic cuts in rate support grant.
Mr. James Wallace: As the Secretary of State will know, the existing single-tier authorities in the islands were examined by the Montgomery committee. The committee recommended that the opportunity, whenever it presented itself, to extend, consolidate and develop the powers of the islands councils should be taken. Why has the Secretary of State failed to take that opportunity in the document?
Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the islands councils. They are examples of single-tier, all-purpose authorities, and they have worked extremely effectively, even in areas with remarkably small populations. Of course we shall want to consider in our review the power and structure of the existing islands councils. If any change is deemed appropriate, the hon. Gentleman and others from the islands will doubtless make submissions, which we shall consider.
Mr. William McKelvey: I understand why the Secretary of State does not want an independent commission to look into the matter: he is not interested in a democratic investigation of the governing of Scotland. But why does he not give his reasons for not considering the Scottish convention's views to be widely representative? I assume that his invitations will be along broadly the same lines as those that have already been sent out by the convention.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect the people of Scotland to believe that he will look fairly and squarely at the matter when the present Government have not the guile or, indeed, the will to establish a Scottish Select Committee?
Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman's idea of an independent, impartial and sound advisory committee is the so-called, self-styled constitutional convention, my first instincts against such a body clearly were right.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Secretary of State said that he would not introduce legislation until 1993. May I point out that the exercise is, in every sense of the word, academic, as he will not be in office then?
I say this with sincere regret, but I do not trust the right hon. Gentleman when he talks about genuine consultations. The Government refuse to engage in genuine consultations with interested parties other than those led by card-carrying Conservatives.
Let me also point out to the Secretary of State—and, perhaps more importantly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—that Inverclyde district council, as it is now constituted, would make an excellent single-tier authority. Social work departments should be part of such councils rather than being given over to specialist agencies. As I have said, however, it is all academic, because that old job lot will be swept away at the next general election.
Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, at least, is confident that his party will win the next election; he is the first Opposition Member to say so today. Nevertheless, even he felt it necessary to hedge his bets by offering his contribution to the consultation process. I assure him that that consultation will be genuine. I welcome his suggestions, which are positive and constructive, and I shall ensure that they are taken into account in the consultation process.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State admit that his predecessor, Lord Campbell of Croy, imposed the two-tier system of Scottish local government, which, as the right hon . Gentleman has said, has not stood the test of time? Does he accept that this Parliament must not be given another opportunity to make a dog's breakfast of local government in Scotland? If there is one tier of government that needs to be democratised, it is his Department. The only way in which we can secure a satisfactory local government structure is to have a directly elected Scottish parliament to legislate for the people of Scotland.
Mr. Lang: My noble Friend Lord Campbell of Croy did not impose the present system; Parliament decided on, and legislated for, that system.
I note that the hon. Gentleman considers that the system that was imposed—and has not stood the test of time—was proposed by a royal commission. That is the kind of commission that the Opposition seem keen to employ this time.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will know from the accompanying map, table and documents that north-east Fife occupies more than half the land mass of Fife, yet contains only about one fifth of the population. Does he accept that those factors give the local community a distinctive character, enhanced by the fact that the parliamentary constituency has precisely the same boundaries as the district council? May we take it—especially as the Secretary of State has
44
referred with approval to the achievements of the islands councils—that his mind will not be closed to the possibility of north-east Fife's having its own single-tier authority?
Mr. Lang: My mind is certainly not closed. I hope that, at the beginning of a consultation period, that comes as no surprise to the hon. and learned Gentleman. A number of the suggestions that he has made should indeed form part of a long-term consultation process.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: As the Secretary of State will know, I would much prefer to deal with the reconstruction of Scottish local government in the context of a Scottish assembly. Does he realise that this process gives him the opportunity to right a wrong perpetrated by the Conservative Government in 1973, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)? I refer to the loss of the local councils in Cambuslang and Rutherglen, and their incorporation in Glasgow district council.
Paragraph 19·4 of the consultation paper says that local councils
"should reflect local loyalties and allegiances and be truly representative of them."
If that means anything, surely what it logically means is the establishment of a one-tier authority for Cambuslang and Rutherglen. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will eventually recommend that, and will not take the advice of any civil service bureaucracy in the Scottish Office.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems keen to join those who are intent on deriding the advisory commission that led to the creation of the present system when these matters were last considered. I note the case that he has made from Cambuslang and Rutherglen, and that too will be borne in mind as part of the consultation process.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Surely a Government who have transferred local power to the centre, destroyed the financial base of local government and intervened to prevent local councils from implementing the policies on which they were elected—as the Government did in Lothian only a few weeks ago—are quite unfit to embark on such consultation. In the circumstances, is not asking a Tory Secretary of State to present a new scheme for Scottish local government a bit like asking Saddam Hussein to present a charter for independent, self-governing countries in the middle east?
To what extent has the Secretary of State prejudged the position? What, for example, is the basis of the reports that he has already decided that he wants the four major Scottish cities to have separate all-purpose authorities?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's idea of impartiality is that something can be fair and impartial only if it is Labour controlled. I do not find his comments of particular value as part of the consultation process.
I should prefer all-purpose unitary authorities in the cities, but the outcome of the consultation process remains to be seen. We shall also see how the boundaries will be drawn and what account is taken of the important interest of areas around the cities, which have strong local loyalties.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does not the Secretary of State accept that, if the effectiveness of local government in Scotland is to be enhanced by a new structure, it must rest on the assent of all the political parties in Scotland and not just of his

45
minority party? Therefore, how does he propose to approach the question of consultation? Will he also recognise that, if he drains away authority from local government to some of the bodies described in paragraph 13 of his document—major, public sector, executive authorities—we shall not be able to strengthen the effectiveness of local government without considering its functions, particularly the functions of those powerful, unaccountable executive authorities?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify functions as an important component of local government reform. We have made it clear throughout that we are approaching the exercise with a view to considering the funding, functions and structure of local government. Indeed, the document refers extensively to the functions of local government. We shall consult, widely and I have listed the bodies to which we shall send the consultation document. I expect that much interest will be expressed by other bodies and individuals and by the political parties. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Liberal Democrats should have a veto on any change of local government, that is not acceptable.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Secretary of State deal with the problem that some of the regional council functions do not readily lend themselves to sub-division? For example, there are 11 directors of education. Is it proposed that they should be sub-divided into 23 or 56 directors of education? The alternative is to have a Scottish parliament. Otherwise, power will be increasingly concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State, joint boards or quangos stuffed with his supporters. That cannot be good for the democratic process and does not add to accountability.
Unless the Secretary of State deals with those problems and the need for a Scottish parliament, his proposals will join those that he has made over the past 12 years and will find themselves in the bucket.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman underlines the fact that function and structure are related. According to the size of structure, we shall have to consider the nature of functions and how they are handled. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a Scottish assembly would solve the problems of local government. It would centralise power instead of keeping it at a local level, devolved to new, strong, all-purpose, single-tier local authorities.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we are used to Scottish statements meekly following English statements on the same subject, this is the first time that a Scottish statement has meekly followed a Welsh statement? Not only has it caught the nationalists napping but there are no Tory Back Benchers from Scotland present.
Does the Secretary of State recognise the dilemmas that he is facing? In his statement he said that he favours a single-tier system, based on the previous county boundaries. I understand the logic of that, and there is a strong lobby for it in Ayrshire. However, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), will tell him that, when he visited Cumnock,
46
there was a strong lobby for Cumnock and Doon Valley to become a single-tier, all-purpose authority. We have also heard that Inverclyde—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the Secretary of State's statement. His question refers to a subject that will be debated tomorrow.
Mr. Foulkes: I am about to finish my question, Mr. Speaker. We have also heard that Inverclyde, north-east Fife and Rutherglen and Cambuslang wish to be single-tier, all-purpose authorities. If that happens, there will be 56 directors of education, social work, planning and highways. Therefore, there is an incompatibility between making councils more local and making them efficient. Would it not be better, for the Secretary of State's safety, to leave the recommendations to an independent commission rather than have him taking unpopular decisions, especially affecting Galloway and Upper Nithsdale?
Mr. Lang: I am delighted that we are engaging the hon. Gentleman's considerable intellect in these issues, and I look forward to his considered submission during the consultation process.
As for my statement following a Welsh statement, I found the Welsh statement educational. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made it clear that the Welsh Office sees no need for an advisory commission and will have no truck with a Welsh assembly.
Mr. Frank Doran: There is clearly a strong case for a unitary authority, but if the Secretary of State is given the opportunity to implement his proposals, will he pay heed to the strategic importance of the regional councils? Will he pay particular regard to the tremendous work of Grampian regional council to provide essential support for the infrastructure of the oil industry, which has brought great benefit to the country in the past few years? It is unlikely that the five district authorities that may become unitary authorities will be able to provide that degree of strategic support.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman makes an effective point in support of regional councils, especially Grampian. Clearly, that must be taken into account. I see that we are in for a fertile, positive and constructive period of consultation.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the absence of the entire membership of the Tory Back Benches and the Scottish National party is due to the fact that they are elsewhere, setting up an alternative Scottish convention to be known henceforth as the Blairgowrie set?
The statement allows for no independent commission. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Stodart committee went out into the country and listened to people before making its recommendations on the delineation between layers of authority? When the Montgomery committee went out into the country and listened to people in the islands, it moderated and changed its views and made a far better report as a result.
Why, when this far more important exercise is being set up, is the Secretary of State not prepared to send an independent team to every part of Scotland to listen to what people have to say and to learn, according to regional and geographic variations? That cannot be done by a

47
written exercise. Is he not prepared to learn because he is afraid that his prejudices might be interfered with? Why will he, uniquely, reduce democracy to the pillar box and shredder?
Mr. Lang: I have already made it clear that, as the consideration of the options becomes narrower and more detailed, if it becomes appropriate to have an advisory body I shall consider that possibility. The Stodart and Montgomery committees were given narrow, specific and detailed remits. We are concerned with the broad principles of the reform of local government. I am glad that they have had such an underlying welcome from Opposition Members. I believe that they will commend themselves in the country.

Points of Order
5.8 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday of last week the Government were defeated on an important vote in European Standing Committee B on the question of patent terms for medicines. The Hansard report of the Committee's proceedings shows that the Government's motion, subsequently amended on a vote, was resolved. In view of the controversy over the reporting of European Standing Committees on other issues, may we be assured that the resolution as passed in Committee will be presented to the House and that the Hansard report will be corrected?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had notice of this, but does the hon. Gentleman allege that Hansard has misreported what happened?
Mr. Wigley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Although Hansard correctly reports that the amendment was carried, it then says that the original motion was resolved. Other hon. Members who were present will testify to the fact that that did not happen.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to look into that matter before I make a ruling on it.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the Committee, I can confirm that the Government's motion was amended by a vote and that the motion, as amended, was carried by the Committee. The Official Report does not mention that.
Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter and be in communication with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, we have had a bit of Welsh and a bit of Scottish, and I hope to further the entente cordiale by introducing a bit of French. Apparently, the French Prime Minister has sought to insult the virility of the British male because when she was last in London she did not receive enough admiring glances. I sought to table a motion—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members' virility is not a matter for me.
Mr. Marlow: I sought to table a motion explaining that hon. Members do not fancy elderly French women, but I was told that that was out of order. How can the House stand up for half the British population when it is insulted like that?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's motion was probably turned down by the Table Office as being "tendered in a spirit of mockery"—which is not allowed.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I apologise on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for going on a bit. In my own defence, may I say that my hon. Friend was a lot worse than me.
My point of order is this. You, Mr. Speaker, are always generous during statements. If, at the end of the statement, some right hon. and hon. Members have not caught your

49
eye, you make it clear that you have noticed that and that, in future, if the subject is raised again, you will keep that fact in mind. As a good crawler, I have always appreciated that during your Speakership, Mr. Speaker. However, you will have noticed that during our exchanges today no Scottish Tory Back Benchers or Scottish National party Members have been present. In order to protect you, Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention that, in future, you should not allow absent brethren—
Mr. Norman Hogg: Or sisters.
Mr. Ewing: —or sisters, to prevail upon you saying that they were not called during today's exchanges on the statement and thus try to persuade you to call them as a favour. If they are absent today, you should score them off your list.
Mr. Speaker: I think that that is a hypothetical matter. I bear in mind all kinds of things, one of which is the regularity with which hon. Members come into the Chamber. It is true that, the more frequently Members are present, the more likely they are to be called.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order arising out of Overseas Development Questions. I have given the Minister for Overseas Development notice of what I propose to say, Mr. Speaker.
It is totally inadequate for the Minister to give the House misleading statements on the position of Kurdish refugees. During the Gulf war, the Government made a statement almost every day about the conduct of the war. In the aftermath of the war, the Government have a responsibility to make statements to the House on what is happening to the Kurdish refugees. Much Government aid and individual help has been invested in solving that problem, but we have had no statement from the Government on the withdrawal, or the proposed withdrawal, of British and allied troops from Kurdistan. Those refugees are in a parlous position, and it is incumbent on the Government to make a proper statement to the House instead of dealing with the crisis in two minutes of Overseas Development Questions.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is increasing anxiety about what the position would be once the allied troops had left. I have been trying to find out, and perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, can advise me, about the allies' precise intentions. Are they to leave by a certain date? Will you, Mr. Speaker, bear in mind that when Foreign Office Questions are taken—I believe, a week on Wednesday—for obvious reasons there will be few opportunities for Back Benchers to be called to press the Minister? In what circumstances would the Minister, whether the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary, come to the House to tell us precisely what the allies will do? Are they going to leave, and, if so, what sort of safety and security would the Kurds have, bearing in mind that a notorious criminal remains in power in Baghdad?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) were here for business questions last Thursday when the Leader of the House said that he was giving careful consideration to whether there should be a debate on that subject.
The answer that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley received to her question on overseas matters today was a long one and it caused the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to say from a sedentary position that the Minister was making a statement. As he made that comment from a sedentary position, it will not be reported in Hansard, but it was certainly a long answer.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Question on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1339) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1338) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick]

Orders of the Day

  Armed Forces (Re-committed) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]

  Armed Forces (Re-committed) Bill
    Clause 1

      CONTINUANCE OF SERVICES ACTS
      5.15 pm
      The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out '31st August 1991' and insert '31st December 1991'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will he convenient to take Government amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are not substantive. The service discipline Acts will expire on 31 August 1991 unless they are continued in force before then by primary legislation or by Order in Council. As is usual, clause 1 of the Bill has been drafted to provide for the Acts to continue in force for a period of five years from 31 August 1991. That assumes, however, that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before that date which effectively means before the start of the summer recess. While I have every expectation that this will be the case, as we are now past the middle of June, I think that it is prudent to provide for the contingency that Royal Assent might come at a later date so there is no possibility of the Acts expiring in August without having been renewed. To achieve this a draft Order in Council has been laid which I hope will be approved shortly and which provides for the Acts to continue in force from 31 August until 31 December 1991. The amendment to clause I simply reflects the change of date on which the Acts would otherwise expire.
      Amendment No. 2 makes a corresponding deferment of the date of repeal of section I of the Armed Forces Act 1986. That is necessary because the Order in Council extending the expiry date of the service discipline Acts to 31 December 1991 is made under that section and it therefore cannot be repealed before that date.
      Dr. John Reid: We have no objection to the amendment and do not wish to be obstructive, but we should like to remind the Minister of the complex nature of the Bill. As he knows, the Bill is a series of amendments to the service discipline Acts. In Committee, further amendments to those amendments were tabled as a result of late amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Today, we find that there are amendments to the amendments to the amendments to the service discipline Acts and, while we do not object to those amendments, if the Government are still in power in five years' time, it would be easier if all four series of amendments could be tabled at the same time.
      Mr. Hamilton: We shall probably still be in power in five years' time. The position has arisen because there has been some delay in bringing the Bill before the House. If
      52
      it had been brought forward earlier in the parliamentary timetable, we would not have had to table the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      YOUNG OFFENDERS: CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Dr. Reid: We do not intend to oppose this clause just for the sake of opposing it. There was full debate in Committee, and I take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the manner in which Government Members worked with the Opposition in pursuing many of the points that were made.
      Clauses 2 to 5 deal mainly with custodial sentences on young service offenders, and incorporate advances made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in protecting young people, both before a verdict is given and after the offence has been proven.
      We welcome the spirit and the detail of the clauses, which in civilian life have resulted in a reduction of custodial sentencing of young people, and have achieved a balance between giving good guidance to courts martial and standing civilian courts, while allowing both to exercise discretion.
      We think it proper that an obligation should be placed on military courts, as it is on their civilian counterparts, to explain as fully as possible to young offenders why a particular sentence is being passed. We regard the clauses as a constructive move forward in the discipline Acts and have no hesitation in supporting them.
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is certainly the case that we are trying to tie in armed forces legislation with that which applies in civilian life. The House has already legislated in respect of offences committed by young people, and we are attempting to bring the sentencing provisions in the armed forces more into line with that.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7

      STOPPAGES UNDER THE 1955 ACTS: PERSONAL INJURIES AND LIMITS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Dr. Reid: We welcome these helpful amendments to the service discipline Acts, and in particular the emphasis that is placed on the concept and practice of awarding compensation to the victims of criminal assault. We welcome also the precedent of giving compensation—be it of a fiscal or financial nature—precedence over fines imposed by courts martial or by civilian courts where financial circumstances prevent the offender from paying both. Again, we do not oppose the clause.
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 8 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 14

      DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY IN RESPECT OF LIABILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE: THE 1955 Acrs
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I had hoped to serve as a member of the Select Committee that considered the Bill, but for reasons best known to itself, the Whips' Office did not invite me to do so. I want to ask the Minister questions on clauses 14 and 15, which are concerned with deductions from pay in respect of maintenance liabilities.
      Are clauses 14 and 15 compatible with the provisions of the Child Support Bill? I remind the Minister that clause 1 of that Bill sets out the duty of parents to maintain those of their children who are qualified children for the purposes of the Bill. It provides that where a parent is not living with a child, that duty is to be considered discharged by the making of periodic payments determined in accordance with the Bill's provisions.
      Clause 4 of the Child Support Bill establishes the right of a person either having the care of a child or the absent parent to apply to the Secretary of State for a maintenance assessment. On Second Reading of the Child Support Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services:
      "Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Army Acts lay down that a commanding officer of a serving soldier has the right to set aside a court maintenance order if he thinks that the man concerned does not have enough income to meet it?
      Is the Secretary of State aware that I have been dealing with a constituency case in which the sheriff court in Falkirk made a child maintenance order but, because the absent parent happens to be a serving soldier, his commanding officer has time and again set aside the court order, and there is nothing that the mother of the two children concerned can do about it?"—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 187.]
      If that is the case, that is an appalling state of affairs. Can the Minister confirm that clauses 14 and 15 of the Armed Forces Bill are compatible with the legal provisions of the Child Support Bill?
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: The purpose of clause 14 is to take into account the changes in the powers of courts to make orders for the financial relief of spouses and children, including where the parents were not married to each other.
      It is in the nature of service pay that it may not be attached. Courts are therefore unable to make orders preventing a service man from receiving his pay arid for it to be paid to another person. However, the 19:55 Acts provide for compulsory deductions to be made from a service man's pay on the authorisation of the defence council or an officer authorised by it, where a maintenance order has been made by a court, including one in Her Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom.
      In recent years, there have been a number of significant changes in civil law—most notably, the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which abolished the concept of illegitimacy in English law; the concept of "child of the family", most recently revised in the Children Act 1989;
      54
      and other provisions of that Act which re-enacted and amended existing provisions on orders for financial relief. All have affected the powers of courts to make orders, with the result that there is a mismatch between those powers and the powers of the defence council to order deductions from pay. The amendments to section 150 of the 1955 Acts ensure that the powers of the defence council are consistent with the powers of courts to make orders.
      Although the concept of illegitimacy has gone from English and Scottish law, it still exists in law in Northern Ireland—and possibly in other countries whose courts' orders would be covered by the section. In order to ensure that the provisions now work for all the relevant countries in respect of illegitimate children, clause 14 makes clear that, for the purposes of the provision, a child is covered whether or not the parents are or have been married to each other. The clause therefore has to make clear also that that sort of dictionary definition in no way affects the operation of the enactments in England and Scotland which abolish the concept of illegitimacy.
      In the same Session, the Government are introducing legislation to provide for a child support agency, which will make assessments of maintenance in all cases where the claiming parent is on benefit. Provisions covering service parents will be included in that legislation to ensure that they are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by virtue of their service.
      Subsection (5) amends the provision which empowers the defence council or an officer authorised by it to make deductions from service pay where it is satisfied that the service man or woman is failing to maintain his wife or any child of his.
      There is doubt that the expression "any child of his" covers illegitimate children. Though there has been conflicting legal advice on that aspect over the years, both the Army and Air Force authorities have made deductions in respect of such children where paternity has been established and admitted. The amendment adds a new subsection to make the position clear for the future—that children of parents who are, or were not, married to each other are included in the provision. By construing the subsection as if it had always been in the Act, the amendment provides retrospective authority for deductions previously made from service pay under the section in respect of illegitimate children. I can therefore reassure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with legislation that has already been passed.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill

    Clause 17

      ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: I oppose the clause and urge the Committee to vote against it. I accept at once that this is a most serious matter and I do not reject the clause lightly or without thorough consideration. I am advised that its drafting is defective and that the clause would not achieve what it seeks to achieve, although that is not my main reason for objecting to it.

      55
      5.30 pm
      The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was right in December during debate on amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill in relation to the death penalty in civil law when he said that the arguments are different as far as service offences are concerned. Essentially, we are now dealing with offences committed in time of war. The fundamental issue here is whether there should be available to service courts the ultimate sanction for action that could imperil the lives of other service men and women who are doing their duty in defending the interests of the state, undermine the ability of the armed forces and ultimately threaten the existence of the state itself.
      The clause seeks to remove that penalty from those five offences under the service discipline Acts which carry a maximum, although not mandatory, sentence of death. Those offences are: serious misconduct in action; communicating with the enemy, or furnishing supplies, or aiding the enemy having been captured; obstructing operations or giving false air signals; mutiny or incitement to mutiny; and failure to suppress a mutiny.
      With the exception of mutiny and incitement to mutiny, the death sentence may be passed only when the offences are committed with intent to assist the enemy. In the case of mutiny and incitement to mutiny, the death penalty is available only where the object or one of the objects of the mutiny is the refusal or avoidance of any duty or service against the enemy or impeding the performance of any such duty or service.
      We should be quite clear that we are concerned here with actions that could ultimately threaten the very existence of the state. In that respect they can be seen as akin to treason for which the death penalty is still mandatory. Until such time as Parliament agrees any change to that law, it would be premature, to say the least, to consider removing the death penalty for the service offences to which I have referred.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: By what means would the death penalty be carried out?
      Mr. Hamilton: It would happen only in war and I think that we are saying that it would be a field offence and likely to be carried out by firing squad.
      It remains our policy that the death penalty would not be carried out in peacetime. The sentence can be imposed only by a court martial, and there are considerable safeguards governing its use.
      Some people have implied that retaining the death penalty in some way casts a slur on the professionalism and dedication of service men and women. The opposite is true. We must admit the possibility of treachery, however remote and for whatever motive, by those whose deliberate actions would make the death of other service men at enemy hands more likely. I am not persuaded that circumstances outweigh our responsibility to protect, as far as possible, young men who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice defending others from tyranny, as some have done all too recently in the Gulf.
      Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend spell out the safeguards that he mentioned?
      Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend asking about safeguards in peacetime?
      Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend spoke about some safeguards, but I am not sure about what they are and in what context they apply.
      Mr. Hamilton: I think that we are saying that if a court martial in peacetime passed a death sentence it would not be upheld by the Secretary of State. It is only in wartime that there is any chance of a death sentence being passed. It is not mandatory and its passing in wartime would, therefore, be up to the court. That is the only time when such a sentence would be likely to be upheld.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman speaks about peacetime. Is he speaking about offences committed in wartime that are tried in peacetime, or does he mean offences that are committed in peacetime? When he speaks about wartime, is he relying on a very narrow definition of war?
      Mr. Hamilton: The definition of war is when our forces are in conflict with the enemy. It is conceivable that if a capital offence had occurred in the Gulf conflict it would be being tried now. The time at which an offence is committed would determine whether it had been committed in wartime.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Minister agree that no such penalty could be imposed in relation to Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Hamilton: We are quite clear that what is happening in Northern Ireland will not be included in any definition of wartime. We do not regard the activities of the Army in Northern Ireland as wartime activities.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Surely the legislation does not say that. Northern Ireland is covered by the legislation, in which armed conflict is defined as taking place in wartime.
      Mr. Hamilton: I give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking that if the death penalty were passed for an offence committed in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State would use his discretion and would not allow the sentence to be carried out.
      Mr. Higgins: I am sorry for persisting but I should like further clarification. My right hon. Friend says that the Secretary of State would overrule a death sentence passed in peacetime. If that will always be the case, why not legislate to the effect that such a sentence will not be imposed in peacetime?
      Mr. Hamilton: At such a time we would not expect a court martial to impose that sentence. I suppose that it is open to the court martial to pass such a sentence, although strong advice would be given to it not to do so. In peacetime such a sentence would be overruled by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Simon Burns: Am I right in saying that there was no declaration of war before the Falklands conflict although we were clearly at war with Argentina? Under this legislation, what would have happened at that time if any offences had occurred?
      Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that a declaration of war is necessary to trigger the legislation. It is a matter of being in armed conflict and therefore the Gulf war, over which we did not declare war either, and the Falklands conflict, would apply.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Perhaps I can assist the Committee. The key issue is that many hon. Members, including some Opposition Members, accept that it is necessary for the sanction to remain in time of war. The legislation must be left vague because it is impossible to produce a clear definition of what is meant by being at war. Most of the major conflicts in which we have been involved since the second world war were not declared to be war. That is why the matter must be left to ministerial discretion.
      Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that there is a great problem about defining war. We are clear about peace and peacetime activity, and in this case that includes Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister is extremely generous in giving way on this important matter. The legislation is not vague; it is quite specific. However, the extent of the discretion that the Secretary of State would seek to exercise is vague. Am I right in deriving from what the Minister said that the Secretary of State's discretion would extend to determining whether what had occurred had happened in conditions which could legitimately be described as conflict, and thereafter would extend to determining whether the death penalty should be carried out? The discretion would be two-legged. First, it would be necessary to determine whether it was appropriate to exercise the discretion against the death penalty and, secondly, it would be necessary to determine whether in the particular case the death penalty should be carried out.
      Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is also the discretion of the court martial. As it is not mandatory on it to pass the death sentence, the court martial could decide that the offence did not merit the death sentence even though it took place at a time of war.
      Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that no member of the services serving in the Gulf conflict, given that he or she was a member of the United Nations force, could have been sentenced to death if found guilty of one of the charges?
      Mr. Hamilton: We were not acting as a United Nations force, although we were acting under a United Nations resolution—the two are slightly different. Therefore, if somebody had committed one of the offences in the Gulf war, he could have been court martialled and the court martial could have passed the death sentence.
      I am aware that some states, such as France, Germany, Denmark and Portugal, have abolished the death penalty for services offences. That is for them to decide. Others of our NATO allies, including the United States, Canada, Belgium and Italy, retain the death penalty. Therefore, there is no question of our being out of step with our allies on this matter. The retention of the death penalty has been given the most careful consideration within the services, and they are firmly of the view, which we support, that the death penalty should be available as a deterrent in a situation that involves armed operations, when acts of treachery could have serious implications for the outcome of an operation or war. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to oppose the clause.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: This is a difficult and anxious topic. Like some others, I start with a moral objection to
      58
      capital punishment. I have always believed that it was wrong to take the life of another and that it was as wrong for the state to do that as it was for an individual. However, I acknowledge that one has to examine whether the particular circumstances which obtain in the services would justify a departure from what, for me, is a matter of principle.
      I listened to the Minister with interest. I believe that I do him no disservice if I conclude from what he said that, in his judgment, the continued existence of the death penalty is for its deterrent effect. I did not understand him to argue for retribution or any similar, outmoded justifications for punishment. Therefore, one has to ask oneself whether, in the context of a conflict, the existence of the death penalty would be a deterrent to someone who was contemplating embarking on an activity that might result in a court martial and a sentence of death. I am not satisfied— this is as much a matter of belief as anything because I doubt whether either side of the argument could obtain evidence in such clear and unequivocal terms as to satisfy the other—with the notion of deterrence.
      I do not seek to detract from the importance and significance of the offences to which the death penalty still applies but I am by no means convinced, by what the Minister has said or by my experience in civilian law, that the death penalty has ever been, or is ever likely to act as, a deterrent. For that reason, I will vote for the clause. Uwe are engaged, as the report sets out as a matter of principle, in endeavouring to equate civilian with military law, then in this area we could, without any fear, cause the penalty both in civilian life and service life to be exactly and precisely the same. I cannot conceive that any prejudice to good order, discipline or anything else of that kind might be created were this clause not to stand part of the Bill.
      Sir Anthony Grant: There is, as I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, a difference between offences such as those that we are debating and civil offences. It is possible that, without this sanction, members of the services could take the law into their own hands. There are examples of that having happened in previous conflicts. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House will bear in mind that, in the heat of battle—something that some hon. Members have experienced—troops or others might exercise capital punishment without trial.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Campbell: That is a possibility, but we put weapons in the hands of troops on the basis that they are properly trained and led and that they will be responsible for their actions. I find it difficult to accept the idea that the absence of the death penalty might provoke troops to take the law into their own hands in repect of a comrade whom they felt had fallen below the high standards to which they were aspiring or which they had achieved.
      We got some flavour of the difficulties that the law causes in application when the Minister dealt with the differences between peacetime and what he began by describing as wartime but went on—quite rightly because wartime implies a formal declaration of war—to describe as conflict. We know that nothing in the Bill distinguishes between one situation and the other. We know only that the penalty is available. As the Minister and I know, because of my intervention in his speech, the court martial has a discretion as to whether to impose the penalty. If it

      59
      does, the Secretary of State then has a discretion to determine whether the background against which the offence was committed constitutes peace or conflict. He then has a further discretion as to whether, in the circumstances of the case, the sentence should be confirmed and the execution take place.
      All that imposes far too much discretion, first on the court martial and secondly on the Secretary of State. I believe that not because I do not think that Secretaries of State will not do their best to exercise that discretion in the most fair and judicial way possible but because I think that some cases will be very hard to decide, and that will make the exercise of the discretion extremely difficult. Like all discretions of this kind, as part of the Secretary of State's administrative responsibilities, it would be subject to no challenge.
      The Bill, far from being useful in the way described in the report of the Select Committee, can lead to confusion. There is about it a lack of certainty that is inimical to the proper notion of a judicial system.
      An issue such as this is necessarily one upon which people should exercise their own consciences. There will be a free vote for Liberal Democrats. I gather from the Minister's nodding head that the same is to apply to Government Back Benchers. I welcome that because it would be unfortunate if an issue such as this were to be determined not on the free and independent judgment of hon. Members, but on the notion that the contents of the Bill had to be either preserved or not.
      It is difficult to achieve consistency in these matters, but it is an objective that the criminal law, whether based in civilian or in service life, should endeavour to achieve. It would be less than consistent if the House were not to accept that the clause should remain part of the Bill.
      Dr. Reid: The Minister began his speech at 5·29 pm and, with five minutes of giving way, finished it ll minutes later. The debate tonight will probably take an hour or one and a half hours. Last Monday, we discussed the vexed problem of whether we should execute dogs. The House sat until 3 am, and we had speech after speech from Ministers and from Back-Bench Members. Tonight, we are discussing whether we should execute British service men and women. That is a sad reflection not only on the Government, but on the House.
      Sir Anthony Grant: Anglo-Saxon attitudes.
      Dr. Reid: It may, as the hon. Gentleman says, be a reflection of the Anglo-Saxon race. As a Celt, I do not want to comment on that.
      The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) asked earlier how sentences were carried out. How sentences are carried out makes little difference. There is no glorious, moral and majestic way in which to execute anyone—far less anyone who has been prepared to offer his life for his country. However, as a matter of interest, the last execution arising out of the second world war, which was carried out on 4 January 1946 some months after even VJ day, was, according to the death certificate which I have, by the breaking of the vertebrae, which I take to mean hanging. There was not even the dignity of a field execution.
      The question has raised some interest outside the House. On reflection, that is both understandable and
      60
      curious. It is understandable because we are dealing with a matter of life and death; it is curious because the Government have argued all along that the death penalty has not been handed down for any of the five capital military offences contained in the services Acts since the second world war. In other words, for almost half a century, we have not used the death penalty for a purely military offence.
      Furthermore, as the Minister told us at some length, it has been and remains the express policy of the Ministry of Defence that the five offences should not carry the death penalty during peacetime. The Government have never explained adequately to me—or to other hon. Members, I presume—why the distinction is made and how it is supposed to operate. I welcome the distinction because I welcome the fact that the Government say that they will not use the death penalty in peacetime. I welcome that on humanitarian grounds, but I am slightly suspicious that the distinction is based on humanitarian grounds by the Government because on other issues they have not been renowned for being the most humanitarian of Governments.
      I am confused by the Government's logic because they have never adequately explained the distinction between war and peace in the use of the death penalty, or the definition. The distinction cannot be a matter of deterrence, which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), as there is no logical reason why the death penalty should be a more effective deterrent in wartime than in peacetime. Indeed, the opposite is true, as has been illustrated by history and as was mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      The distinction cannot be a matter of justice, as wartime military courts cannot be assumed to be any less fallible than peacetime military courts. Indeed, given the conditions of war, the opposite is almost bound to be the case and it is almost inevitable that innocent individuals would stand more chance of being among those executed in war than among those executed in peacetime.
      The distinction cannot be on the ground of equity. Those who argue that different standards must apply during wartime, as has been argued this evening, are, by virtue of their own argument, arguing that the sentence of execution should be related to the political circumstances in which the offence takes place and not to the offence itself.
      Above all, the distinction cannot be on the ground of clarity. It has been amply illustrated in questions to and answers from the Minister, even at this early stage in the debate, that the precise difference between wartime and peacetime is completely unclear and it is completely unclear how the difference is to be defined and, just as importantly, by whom.
      The Minister floundered to an extent. Without being light-hearted and without implying malevolence, I must say that he has given us a promise that is not worth the paper on which it is not written. Nothing has been defined on paper. His offer to us tonight is a bit like a cross between an offer from Don Corleone and an offer from Sir Keith Joseph. He is making us an offer that is difficult to refuse, but no one can understand it. That is not the basis on which to make life and death decisions.
      The Minister's arguments in his short contribution should not be allowed to obscure the importance of the issue. There is no overpowering logic or rationale behind which supporters of the Minister's position can hide.

      61
      There is no self-evident case to put. The supporters of the Minister's position are duty bound out of obligation to the House, to themselves and to the armed services to explain and argue their case rather than just to walk into the Lobby on the assumption that the status quo is a self-evident argument. They must make up their own minds on the issue as a matter of individual conscience.
      I am glad that the Minister nodded in response to an earlier question. I have been told that there will be a free vote tonight. If so, it will be a free vote on a three-line Whip. I am not sure of the distinction. I understand that there is a three-line Whip on hon. Members to turn up, but that they will then be free to vote as they see fit—unless, presumably, they are members of the Government, as the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take it that it will be a free vote. It will be up to the individual. That is certainly the case for the Opposition and I am glad to be reassured that it is the case for Conservative Members.
      The simple fact on which every mind should be concentrated this evening is that there are still five offences, as outlined by the Minister, that carry the death penalty.
      Mr. David Winnick: The question of a free vote is of great importance. Labour Members know that they have a free vote and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has said that his colleagues have a free vote. Has the Minister confirmed that Conservative Members will have a free vote? We have heard rumours, but we cannot know what Whip they are on. I understand that they are on a two-line Whip on the clause. Will the Minister confirm that Conservative Members have a completely free vote?
      Dr. Reid: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong and that Conservative Members are on a three-line Whip. However, I think that the Minister has assured me that the Government have found a formula for having a three-line Whip and a free vote. I will accept his reassurance on the matter and he may wish to explain the position.
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am more than happy to clarify the position for the benefit of Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman asked about our whipping arrangements this evening. The Chief Whip has demanded of us that we should attend the House, but when it comes to the vote on the death penalty there will be a free vote affecting all Conservative Members.
      6 pm
      Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I think that I understand the distinction between voting for the Bill as a whole and voting for the clause.
      As I was saying, the simple fact on which every one of those free-voting minds should concentrate is that there are still five offences that carry the death penalty under military law. These have been outlined, and comprise serious misconduct in action, obstructing operations, mutiny or incitement to mutiny, failure to suppress a mutiny and assisting the enemy. As the Minister said, all of those, with the exception of mutiny or incitement to mutiny, require the intention to assist the enemy.
      After considering the issue, the Committee voted by a majority to abolish the death penalty, which is why the clause is incorporated in the Bill before us tonight. I agree with that decision. In discussing the issue, I do not want to enter into a full debate about the relative merits of capital
      62
      punishment as a means of deterring crime or misdemeanour. That debate has been held twice during this Parliament alone, most recently on 17 December last, and on both occasions the House has made its view known by a convincing margin. I may say in passing that, during the debate on the merits or otherwise of the death penalty in civilian life, the argument has commonly been employed by those supporting the death penalty that one reason why Parliament should accept it is that there is overwhelming public support for it in civilian life. Despite that, Parliament has rejected the death penalty, and I would merely observe that that is one argument that cannot be employed tonight, because I do not believe that there is any such public demand for the death sentence as it applies to British service men and women.
      It is as well to make it absolutely plain that there is no suggestion from anyone that the five offences outlined already should go unpunished—obviously not. They are serious offences and will continue to be treated as such, qualifying, even if the clause remains in the Bill, for sentences of long periods of imprisonment—possibly life imprisonment.
      Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a minimum age as regards the death penalty? I ask that because a number of Scots service men taking part in the Gulf conflict were aged under 18 years. I seek confirmation of the fact that, when the Committee debated the clause, there was some discussion of the minimum age.
      Dr. Reid: The Committee spent some time considering the general question of the age at which young service men and women should be allowed to go into active service overseas. Recommendations are made in the report—although clearly they do not form part of our proceedings this evening. Nevertheless, problems could arise. There have been a number of relevant cases—particularly one famous case in civilian life. I cannot remember the names of the two young gentlemen involved, but one of them was certainly below the minimum age for execution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Craig and Bentley."] Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, the young gentleman was executed and, as hon. Members will know, there was considerable doubt surrounding the verdicts. The sort of problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred could, therefore, arise.
      The point that I was making was that, even if the death penalty were abolished, as the clause now incorporated in the Bill suggests it should be, misdemeanours, crimes and breaches of discipline would still merit very serious punishment indeed. The most pressing issue that we must consider, however, is not whether they merit punishment if proven, because that is clear. Nor are we talking about the principle of capital punishment, as the House has already reached a view about that on a number of occasions. The question is whether it is necessary and justifiable to continue to apply different standards for our service men and women on one hand and for civilians on the other. It is my view—and it was the expressed view of the Committee—that that is not justifiable.
      Following the Committee's decision, the Minister said that the Government were mildly embarrassed. The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled. Perhaps I should have said that he was quoted in the press as saying that the Government were mildly embarrassed. That does not surprise me. Having lost the vote in Committee, the

      63
      Government have attempted to save face by claiming that it has all been a terrible mistake which can easily be corrected at the appropriate moment. I do not believe, however, that that should be the main source of the Government's embarrassment. The fact of the matter is plain: the Government have come here to tell the House that they must reimpose the death penalty in respect of these purely military offences in order to keep discipline in the armed forces at precisely the moment when we are welcoming our service men and women back as heroes from the Gulf.
      Moreover, the Government must explain to the House —as the Minister failed to explain in his opening remarks —why we require the death penalty to ensure good order and discipline when seven of our NATO allies, including the French, who fought beside us in the Gulf, decided years ago that the death penalty should be abolished in military law. Why is the death penalty required for the British armed forces when it is not required in France, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands and Luxembourg?
      Mr. John P. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between the NATO countries to which he referred and Britain, to the extent that Britain is the only one that has a professional and volunteer force, whose members should not be expected to behave in an exemplary manner, as they did in the Gulf, with the threat of capital punishment over them?
      Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes a good point, to which I shall come in a moment. Most of the countries—indeed, all the countries—that I mentioned have a conscript army. One would think that those countries would have more justification for keeping the deterrent of the death penalty than countries with a volunteer army, such as the British Army. But they do not do so. We must ask why that is. What is different about us? Why do we require the death penalty to maintain good order and discipline in the British armed forces when that is not necessary in France, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands and Luxembourg? Lest anyone on the Conservative Benches should attempt to give us a neolithic racist analysis by saying that it is in the Anglo-Saxon character, I should point out that Australia and New Zealand, whose people presumably come mainly from the same stock as ours, have also recently revoked the death penalty—although that may of course be the result of the infusion of Celtic blood and good sense, particularly in New Zealand.
      On a matter of life and death such as this, the Government have a duty to explain exactly why we differ. Are they saying that we need the death penalty because of the lack of leadership among our commanding officers? If they are, they will have a hard time defending their assertion following the officers' performance in the Gulf. Certainly, that is not my view, or that of my hon. Friends, nor is it the view of many Conservative Members. Are the Government justifying the distinction—the necessity to retain the death penalty here in contrast to seven of our allies—on the grounds that our service men and women are any less loyal, courageous or committed than those of our allies? Or are the Government really trying to tell the
      64
      British people that following the courage and determination shown by our young men and women not only in the Gulf but on many previous occasions on which they have defended their country?
      The Government have a duty to be absolutely clear and specific in their argument and I do not think that the Minister was clear and specific in his opening remarks. It is no use telling us, as we have been told—not this evening, but in the past—that there is a law commission which might report or might not report, sooner rather than later, at some time in the indefinite future. Notwithstanding that fact, there is absolutely no argument against ensuring that, by the time the commission reports, the House has expressed its view on the matter. I cannot see why it is worse to have as the status quo at the time of the report no death penalty than it is to have as the status quo at the time of the report retention of the death penalty.
      What are the Government trying to tell us by seeking to reintroduce the death penalty in military law? That is what they will be doing if they vote against clause stand part. Are they telling us that it is necessary to maintain discipline in the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force? Are they saying that, in the Gulf, our service men and women needed the threat of death hanging over their heads to prevent them from assisting the enemy or taking part in mutinous activity, but that the French did not? If that is what the Government are saying, it is a disgraceful slur on the reputation, integrity, courage and conviction of our forces. I do not believe for a minute that the Government and particularly the Minister of State, who is an ex-guardsman, consciously believe that, but that is the only logical and objective conclusion that can be drawn from the requirement that the death penalty should be reintroduced in our discipline Acts.
      Since the end of world war two, British service men and women have been called upon to risk their lives in more than 10 conflicts. In not one of those conflicts has it been necessary to use the death penalty. It was not necessary to use it in Malaysia, Aden, Korea, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez, Oman, Thailand, the Falklands or in the Gulf. It has not been necessary to use it throughout the long and sorry history of the hostilities in Northern Ireland. In all those conflicts, the disciplinary record of the British armed forces has been quite outstanding despite their being in numerous situations where they were under enormous pressure or subjected to extreme provocation.
      The Government will say that the reason for the absence of that lack of discipline is the presence of the death penalty. They claim that it is a deterrent. That is a marvellous circular argument. If the death penalty were used every week, the Government would say that that showed us how necessary the death penalty was to instil discipline and good order. If the death penalty is not used, they say that that shows that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. That is a completely circular argument.
      Many Conservative and Opposition Members prefer to believe that our services have such an outstanding disciplinary record because of the professionalism, courage and, above all, devotion to duty displayed by our service men and women over the decades. Even if the Government remain unconvinced of that self-evident truth, they must conceive that our forces, through their outstanding service to this country, have earned the benefit of the doubt.
      Some hon. Members have argued that the death penalty should be retained to ensure that it is available in the most

      65
      extreme cases, for example, where a maverick soldier collaborates with an enemy and in so doing severely harms Britain's interests or causes the death of many colleagues. However, to act in that case would not require the use of provisions under the services Acts. Ample provision for such a case is already contained in civilian law, as I read it, where the capital offence of treason includes within its definition being "adherent, to the Crown's enemies", a definition which satisfactorily covers an act of gross disloyalty envisaged by some hon. Members tonight.
      Surely our service men and women deserve equal treatment under the law with civilians. I would go further: I believe that our service men and women already put their lives at risk by volunteering for the armed services and by joining up to defend their country. They risk their lives in war. Service men and women have shown a sense of patriotism which intrinsically deserves respect and which demands at least equality before the law in respect of subjects as important as the death penalty.
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman said that service men should enjoy equal treatment with civilians. I remind him that there is a mandatory death sentence for treason for civilians. In those circumstances, and because we are not discussing a mandatory death sentence, there would be less than equal treatment in quite a different direction from that which the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Dr. Reid: I accept the discretionary element. The Minister is saying that the risk may be wider in the armed forces, but it is not quite as deep for the most extreme cases. Several hon. Members and I have already explained that the element of discretion involved by the lack of definition is very worrying. That applies not only at the level of the courts martial, but to the incredible discretion that apparently lies with the Secretary of State with regard to the definition of the difference between war and peace and, in the last instance, in respect of whether a death sentence passed by a court martial should be commuted.
      Our service men and women should have the benefits of the extension of the protection that has already been afforded under civilian law by the House in its opposition to the death penalty. In the most extreme cases, there is already adequate provision under civilian law to cope with cases for which the death penalty may well be adequate. However, soldiers, sailors, air men and women would be treated on an equal footing with their civilian counterparts.
      Mr. Norman Miscampbell: In all fairness, we all voted against the death penalty for treason. It is not a proper argument to claim that it is available in this case. I will vote beside those who wish to abolish it in the Army. However, I believe that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) accompanied me through the Lobby when we voted against the death penalty for treason.
      6.15 pm
      Dr. Reid: I am talking about the will of Parliament, not the will of individual Members. The will of Parliament has been expressed on those issues and it is that the law should still include a capital offence for treason. According to my interpretation of the subject, the civilian definition is wide enough to include the most extreme examples given by hon. Members to justify a much wider application of the death sentence for the armed forces.
      66
      As the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) hinted, I believe that the threat of execution is an anachronism. It is a cruel and barbarous throwback. It has its roots in the era of forced conscription and in the philosophy of the press gang. I do not believe that it has a place in a volunteer army or volunteer forces that operate within and on behalf of a civilian society in which capital punishment has been abolished for the civilians.
      I want to draw the attention of the House to a tragic and horrifying anomaly which illustrates the inequality and injustice facing our service men and women and which the reintroduction of the death penalty in military law would reproduce. Let us consider a British soldier in Northern Ireland who is reaching the end of a long term of duty. He has been subjected to physical and psychological pressures the like of which we cannot imagine. Indeed, we could consider a soldier in any hostility or war that could be defined as war at the Minister's discretion.
      Let us imagine a not unlikely scenario in which details of that soldier's patrol are betrayed by a British civilian and the patrol is ambushed by terrorists and a number of his colleagues and civilians are murdered by the terrorists. During that attack, after his long and gruelling period in the armed services, that soldier commits an act which could be defined as misconduct in action. Perhaps he panics and abandons his post. Perhaps he uses words that are likely to cause despondency or unnecessary alarm.
      Under military law at the moment, that solider could be executed. However, the agent who betrayed him and the terrorists who wrought murder and mayhem on his colleagues and the civilian population could not face the same fate. They would be afforded the protection of a civilised code of penalties freely passed and backed by this Parliament. That is a protection which the Government seek to remove from our service men and women by removing clause 17 from the Bill.
      Where in God's name is the justice behind that? Is not it time that we ended such a tragic anomaly? Is not it time that we paid a compliment to our services' professionalism and dedication by ending that relic of conscription and the press gang? Is not it time that we extended to our forces, who bear the burden of protecting our freedom, values and rules of civilised life the benefit and protection of those same freedoms, values and standards of civilised life? I and many hon. Members believe that that is the very least that we owe our service men and women.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: I support my now doubly honourable and gallant Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his determination to ensure that the clause is removed from the Bill. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's elevation to the Privy Council and to the very helpful way in which he always conducted himself throughout the long and detailed proceedings of the Special Standing Committee.
      I greatly appreciated the sincerity of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) both in Committee and this evening. However, my right hon. Friend is right. I regret that Her Majesty's Government have not imposed a three-line Whip on the issue, because it is of paramount importance for the armed forces, of crucial significance to the community as a whole and important constitutionally.
      The great merit of the Special Standing Committee procedure is that members of the Committee have two

      67
      bites of the cherry. They can summon witnesses and examine the merits or otherwise of the principles of the proposed legislation and the issues that it raises. They then have the chance of operating as a Standing Committee, and considering the legislation line by line and clause by clause.
      Let us consider the first process first. The outcome of that deliberation and of the cross-examination of the expert witnesses from the Ministry of Defence was that, on balance, it was useful to retain the option of the death penalty for five service offences and of course—we were bound to do this—that it should remain obligatory for the offence of treason. I urge hon. Members to read paragraph 21 of our recommendations. The paragraph was very carefully drafted. I urge hon. Members also to read paragraphs 411 to 421 of the evidence session which took place on 13 February. If they do so, they will see a clear exposition of the arguments.
      To summarise those arguments, the service offences are potentially of such a heinous nature that, if committed in certain circumstances, they could cause the deaths of thousands and thousands of people. They could also cause the failure of operations, the failure of campaigns and, in certain instances, they could even cause the failure of Her Majesty's forces to win a war, with all the constitutional implications that that would have for the defence and freedom of this country.
      The sanctions are discretionary, except in the case of treason, and they are ultimate sanctions that would be involved only in exceptional cases. That this is so is made clear by the very fact that they have not been invoked since the second world war. Some people such as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North have argued that it is difficult to distinguish between declared war and peace or hostilities and conflict. Since the second world war, declared conflicts have been very rare, but states of hostility have been all too frequent for our armed forces. However, in peacetime, too, there can be certain circumstances in which the ultimate sanction of the death penalty could be appropriate.
      I refer, for example, to mutiny or failure to suppress mutiny. We should bear in mind that not only does power come from the barrel of a gun but that our armed forces have at their disposal fearsome weapons of mass destruction, even including nuclear weapons. If members of Her Majesty's forces are not to be dissuaded or deterred from mutiny to the most effective extent possible, at least theoretically there is a greater chance that the weapons that they have at their disposal could be misused by mutineers. We know what the ultimate constitutional consequences of this could be. The very fact that we still retain a civil law of treason which has the same force in service law shows that we regard that threat as serious. The first step towards an act of treachery and treason could be an act of mutiny in peacetime.
      It is not only difficult to make an effective distinction between peace and war, which was borne out in our Committee hearings, but it is legislatively clearer and less ambiguous for the law to be uniform as between peace and war, and there are very good rational reasons for so doing.
      The next part of my argument reflects the arithmetical accident of the second part of our Committee proceedings to which I alluded. We had decided, in our deliberative
      68
      phase on the Chairman's report, that we should draft it, as we did, retaining the death penalty as a useful ultimate sanction for members of the armed forces for the offences to which we have alluded. However, in the so-called Standing Committee procedure, by an accident—as Chairman, I was a spectator in the process—one member was in hospital, another was in China, and another was temporarily absent. The Parliamentary Private Secretary was looking for the temporarily absent colleague. As a consequence, the clause was inserted in the legislation. That had certainly not been the intention of the Committee when it deliberated the issue in a previous discussion of the Special Standing Committee report—it was an arithmetical aberration. Let us be generous—however it was perhaps fortunate. As a consequence, we have this important debate tonight.
      I argue most strongly that it would be wholly inappropriate for the Committee to do anything other than reject clause 17. I wish only that Her Majesty's Government had imposed a three-line Whip to that effect.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Before I criticise the Minister of State, I congratulate him on his appointment to the Privy Council. Now that he has arrived at that august and, by its name, highly secret body, I am sorry that he is not standing up to his civil servants on the issue and recognising that it is an anachronism to retain the death penalty for such offences. I am sorry to say that the Minister of State tonight and in Committee found himself in a dreadful tangle about peace and war and about when the legislation is to be applied.
      As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) suggested, under the 1955 armed forces legislation, the key trigger point is the enemy. An enemy is defined as somebody who is engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces. I should have thought that, under that definition, there is little doubt that the IRA is an enemy. It is engaged in armed operations against Her Majesty's forces. I hope that the Minister of State will clear up that point. If a British service man commits an act within the sections of the armed forces Acts in Northern Ireland, would he be sent to a court martial? Would that court martial be able to pass the discretionary sentence of the death penalty? On the other hand, is the Minister saying, "No, all this happens in peacetime and because of that we will not charge the unfortunate service man"? If so, he will find himself in a tangle about what is or is not peacetime. There is certainly not peace in Northern Ireland. If service men fall foul of the legislation, I do not want to see them being sent to a court martial and then sentenced to death.
      The Minister should also make clear where that statement originated. I have spent a couple of hours in the Library thumbing my way through the "Manual of Military Law". I last looked at it years ago when I was at a warrant officer cadet school. It has changed a bit since then; it has got longer and more voluminous. I might not have been very diligent, but I could not find that statement of policy in the manual. The first I heard of it was in Committee, but perhaps other hon. Members have read it or seen it. When the Inland Revenue issues various exemptions or discretionary exemptions from legislation, it publishes them so that everybody can look them up. Where is this policy or law in the "Manual of Military Law"? I hope that the Minister will tell us because these are important matters. Some of us believe that the rule of

      69
      law should apply and that we should not have to rely simply on policy statements, even from a worthy and honourable Minister. I make no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but we should not have to rely on such so-called "policy statements".
      6.30 pm
      I turn now to the issue of whether we should maintain, repeal or change the clause. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said, this is an argument about the death penalty. The House has debated the matter time and time again and many arguments have been made against the death penalty. I turn first to the argument about morality. In moral terms, I believe that it does not make any difference whether the offence is civil or military because it is immoral for the state to take a life even in the circumstances that have been described. Although I recognise that others will disagree, I believe that the House accepted the argument about morality when it decided to repeal the death penalty for civil offences.
      We must also consider the theories about punishment. When I was a student in the 1950s—the House does not contain many students from the fifties these days—I remember reading an article by a gentleman called Mabbott, who was a philosophy don at St. John's college, Oxford. No doubt he got them from somewhere else, but he summarised the three theories of punishment as reform, deterrence and retribution. Those theories may fit most forms of punishment, but not capital punishment. That certainly applies to the theory about reform.
      I do not know whether military law that can invoke the death penalty is a deterrent. The death penalty would probably not be a deterrent in civil law for most of the crimes and murders that are committed in Britain in the latter part of the twentieth century, and I do not believe that it is a deterrent in military law. If the unfortunate Argentinian conscripts who did not acquit themselves as they should have at the end of the Falklands war were going home to face such legislation, it did not deter them from failing to do what they should have done. Let us also consider the poor Iraqi farmers who were conscripted into Saddam Hussein's army and who gave themselves up in droves. If such legislation had been in operation for them, they would no doubt have broken every clause of it—and Saddam's legislation is no doubt even worse and more draconian. Those conscripts were not deterred by the thought that they would face the ultimate penalty at home. If such things happen, the army collapses, but a few sentences in a manual on military law or in legislation will not be a deterrent.
      The third theory of punishment is retribution, which is a good old-fashioned word that means revenge. I do not say that society does not have a right to exact some form of collective revenge, as part of punishment, for heinous crimes, of which rape is a classic case. However, even revenge must have its bounds in a civilised society, and the death penalty goes too far. There is a danger that revenge itself will go too far in the heated mood of war when the realm is threatened and when the security of the state is being attacked.
      When the House debated capital punishment in respect of civilian crimes, one of the powerful arguments used against it was that a jury can make mistakes. I would imagine that a court martial could also make mistakes. The courts martial that are called rapidly during a war are
      70
      certainly likely to make mistakes. However, we should consider not only the possibility of mistakes, but the pressure that falls on the courts. Unfortunately, British courts have recently been under the pressure of terrorism. I do not criticise anybody for making a mistake, but we must recognise the military pressure that will exist when the realm is under attack and national security is being endangered. A time of war is not the best time to decide matters that could lead irrevocably not only to conviction but to the death of a service man or woman.
      There have been many references to the law of treason. Returning again to my student days of the 1950s and 1960s, I remember reading the case of Roger Casement. F. E. Smith always used to say that Casement was hanged because of the absence or presence—I cannot remember which—of a comma in the Treason Act 1351. The argument in the Casement case centred on whether there should or should not be a comma in the legislation which, being so old, did not contain commas. Casement was hanged.
      I also remember reading the case of Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sorry to say that I am referring to Lord Haw Haw. Even to a student, Lord Jowitt's judgment seemed to owe more to revenge and retribution than to the canons and principles of jurisprudence. In the emotive circumstances of a war or its aftermath, deciding such matters is extremely difficult, especially when they involve a person's life.
      It appears that the draftsmen of the 1955 Acts, or the persons who instructed the draftsmen, may have recognised that dilemma to a certain extent because, as the Minister pointed out, the sanction is not mandatory; it is discretionary. We are talking about complicated offences—not about the simple offence of doing or not doing something. The legislation contains many words, with many subordinate clauses and commas. Intent has to be proved. Perhaps those who drafted the legislation, which goes back a long way, thought that the death penalty should not be mandatory because of the many different nuances. But that does not solve the problem; it simply creates a further dilemma. It is not necessarily an advantage to say that the penalty is discretionary because the court must exercise that discretion to determine a man's life or death. How does the court or the court martial decide that? A splendid plea in mitigation might result in a life sentence while a poor plea in mitigation could lead to the death penalty.
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept that there would be degrees of severity in any charges coming before a court martial, which would then make a judgment on the sentence depending on the severity of the crime committed?
      Mr. Davies: Yes, I accept that, but once we start talking about different degrees of severity, we get into great difficulties with the death penalty. I can also remember reading the Homicide Act 1957, which abolished the death penalty except for murder in the course or furtherance of a theft. The courts encountered all sorts of difficulties with that. The case of Craig and Bentley was mentioned earlier from a sedentary position, but we must also remember the case of poor old Gipsy Smith. A policeman jumped on the bumper of his car when he had been stealing scaffolding clips. In both cases, the Home Secretary had to decide whether to extend the prerogative of mercy. Courts martial

      71
      will be in a similar position and will almost have to assume the Home Secretary's role when deciding whether a person is guilty. It is all very well for the Minister to talk about degrees of severity but if someone is found guilty of an offence under a particular section of a piece of legislation, sentence has to be pronounced. How does the court decide? The court martial is in an invidious position. I would not like to sit on such a court martial.
      Mr. Brazier: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's case. Surely the last sentence that he uttered goes to the heart of the matter: he would not like to serve on a court martial. With respect, as he is not a member of the armed forces, he never would serve on a court martial. The point about this category of offence is that we are dealing with matters which are not for legal judgment but which occur in the special circumstances of a war and on which military judgments are necessary, albeit with the ultimate appeal to the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He does not do service to the members of the court martial. They exercise a legal judgment. It is a legal court—if that is not a statement of the obvious. The military judgment is about the facts and whether the defendent comes within the legislation or not. The legal judgment is not only whether that person should be convicted but whether he should be sentenced to the death penalty. It is not fair to impose on a court martial the power which countless Home Secretaries said that they did not like to exercise when there was a royal prerogative in respect of the death penalty in civilian law.
      The more that one examines the matter, the more of a dilemma it appears. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has said that in times of peace it would not invoke the death penalty. The Ministry of Defence does not want to see British service men sentenced to death. The Ministry of Defence is not a villain in this matter, but it is locked into the dilemma of the legislation. The more that one examines it and the more amendments one seeks to make, whether on policy grounds or otherwise, the more difficult the dilemma becomes.
      It is not good for the Minister to say that the Secretary of State would not do this or that, or that the court would be told in no uncertain terms what was expected. Who are Ministers to tell the court what to do, even if they are Ministers at the Ministry of Defence and the court is a court martial? That is not the basis of the rule of law in this country. That is not a principle that we will die for and defend and for which our service men will fight. It is not a satisfactory case to make to the House.
      Without any disrespect to the Minister, there is no way out of the dilemma. The only solution is to maintain the clause and accept the logic that the death penalty must go. I do not believe that that will affect service discipline or affect the excellence of our armed forces one bit one way or the other. The Ministry of Defence should accept that at last, and accept the clause.
      Sir John Stokes: We are debating a most serious matter, one which gives us all a great deal to think about. Perhaps I could first make a practical point. In a fairly long experience with members of Her Majesty's forces in all three services, with officers, non-commissioned officers and men, I have never once
      72
      heard the subject of the death penalty raised. That is during a period which stretches back 50 years. Therefore, the excitement and intensity of the opposition to the death penalty expressed in the House will come new to most people in Her Majesty's forces.
      We heard from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) a most able and carefully argued speech. He was clearly a most useful member of the Committee, the report of which I read with the greatest interest. However, the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed flawed in one sense. He suggested that to make these dire penalties available in the desperate circumstances to which he referred was in some way a slur on the vast mass of our forces. That is wrong. No member of Her Majesty's forces would mind in the least if the law remained as it was or feel in any way that it cast a slur on them.
      As someone who loves his country most deeply, as we all do here, I believe that we are discussing the most terrible potential happenings. They are quite unlike the ordinary type of crime that we come across in civilian life. We are discussing not, as some Opposition Members suggest, some theoretical debating point, but surely the essential defence of the nation in battle, often in dire circumstances. The offences with which we are dealing are serious and, as some people correctly say, treasonable. The very life and existence of the nation might be at stake. To avoid those terrible crimes being committed, the supreme penalty of the death sentence must be available to the military courts.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir John Stokes: I wish to progress a little further. I have only just started. I am trying to make a short speech because I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall not give way.
      The death penalty for the armed forces was discussed by the Defence Select Committee. The view of the Ministry of Defence and of the services was made clear. They did not wish to change the present position on the death penalty. Surely this House, some Members of which have not served in the armed services, must pay some regard to that important point. We cannot and should not let down our fighting troops by any sign of weakness or any theoretical, liberal, pacifist or other argument. We are here to defend the nation and support our troops. We should maintain the penalties as they are and leave the position wholly unchanged.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Rees: When I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), I reached the pitch where I decided not to speak. He expressed cogently and with the benefit of a legal background many of the points that I had wanted to make. However, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) provoked me, in the best parliamentary sense of the term, when he mentioned pacifism.
      I oppose the Government's view, but not because I am a pacifist. I spent five years at war, as my father did before me in the first world war. He was a founder member of the Labour party in a small way. Pacifism does not arise in this matter but I shall not rehearse the arguments. My right

      73
      hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) dealt with the point that there is little difference between the argument about capital punishment in the armed services and the argument about capital punishment generally. I simply wish to mention that, when we debate whether to bring back capital punishment, terrorism is always raised. I have more reason than most to detest terrorism, but I do not approve of capital punishment even for terrorists. I hold that view for very good reasons, quite apart from the moral argument. I understand that if a "terrorist" is involved in a shoot-out with the Army, people get killed. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. But whether the state should become involved in capital punishment is a different argument.
      I wish to have one point made clear by the Minister before I rehearse several other points. The Minister will not be surprised to know that I am interested in Northern Ireland. With the acceptance of the Irish Government, the British Government never talk about a state of war. All Governments have done the same. The IRA obtains only 2 per cent. of the vote in Northern Ireland. It is not a national freedom army. There is not a state of war in Northern Ireland. I am concerned for the soldiers in Northern Ireland. They are there at our behest. We are passing legislation which, at least according to the definition of peace and war, does not apply to them. In response to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, I hope that the Minister will clear that point up.
      I am affected by not the general argument, but two other arguments. In 1942 I was stationed with the RAF at Uxbridge, which was a good place to be. Although we thought that nothing ever happened there, my young eyes were opened because in one unit—I do not recall its number—a fair number of young men suffered from LMF, which stood for lack of moral fibre. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) also served in the RAF. He will recall that term. A fair number—I do not know the exact number—of young men refused to fly. They were afraid. Some people—although not those who flew—called them cowards.
      Sixty-odd thousand very brave young men died in Bomber Command and some—I gather mainly from Bomber Command—refused to fly. I never felt that those who refused to fly deserved capital punishment even in time of war. Those involved knew that. The only people who may think that they deserved to die are those who have never heard a shot fired in anger. That is the difference between the two points of view.
      Many of the equally brave American 8th Air Force, which flew over Germany in daytime and suffered enormous casualties, peeled off and landed in Norway and Switzerland. I do not know what the Americans did about that. I am sorry that it happened, but nothing will ever bring me round to believing that those pilots should have been shot or sentenced to death. Some who take that view —I do not include the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge—have never heard a shot fired in anger.
      It is easy to say, "Execute them". My father told me what happened during the first world war. People who were afraid of going over the top were executed. We should not consider doing that type of thing because I do not believe that it is part of maintaining the discipline of the Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy.
      74
      Brave young men, and these days young women, will always fight for their country and they do not need the death penalty to maintain their courage. That is a mistake and the Government are dealing with the problem in the wrong way. The death penalty is not needed in Germany or France and I, among other hon. Members, have great respect for German soldiers. They fought with great bravery during the second world war. If they do not need the death penalty, why should our soldiers, airmen and sailors need it?
      It is the trouble of older men to talk of being a student, but, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, I was a student not in the 1950s but in the 1930s. I was then at Salerno in an RAF commando unit and I saw the bravery of the Army at the time. It was not generalled very well, but that is another matter. A small bridgehead was formed and a number of soldiers mutinied. The case is famous and it is still being referred to by my hon. Friends. I do not know the details of the case, but it was a small area and I learnt of what was going on and, whatever else, those who mutinied did not deserve to die and they did not. I believe that my former right hon. and learned Friend, the one-time Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General, and the Member for what was West Ham, South, Lord Elwyn-Jones, served on the court martial and the question arose as to whether the mutineers should be executed. Given the questions that are asked in the House from time to time, it is just as well that they were not and they certainly did not deserve to be.
      The Government are going about the matter in the wrong way. I understand the views of many people, especially in the Army. I have no concept of what it is like to be in the front line, but I respect the bravery of our armed forces and I have never had any doubt about that. However, I also know that sometimes people are afraid and that the only people who are afraid are those on the front line. People who say that they are not afraid are not telling the truth. In that respect, I hope that the Government will not try to overturn the clause.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: First, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for not being here at the beginning of the debate as I was unavoidably detained. I also offer him my warmest congratulations. I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who spent an interesting part of his service career in my constituency.
      On 17 December 1990, the House decided for the 17th time to reject the reintroduction of capital punishment for murder. In that debate, I argued that the death penalty should be reintroduced for the murder of police officers because the police and I believe it is a unique deterrent, which would protect them as they go about their difficult and dangerous job. The House listened to the debate and decided not to reintroduce the death penalty for murder.
      Tonight the House is considering the different, but closely related, question whether the death penalty should be retained for very serious offences committed in wartime. That was detailed in the evidence which the Select Committee considered. It seems to me that we have a curious state of affairs. The Government overwhelmingly voted for the abolition of capital punishment for murder on a traditional free vote, and they were not prepared to retain that sanction for the murder of a police officer.
      That vote has been very much in my mind in the past few hours. I am reminded of the action of my right hon.

      75
      Friend the Home Secretary in releasing one of the persons convicted of the murder of three Metropolitan police officers in 1966, the first year after capital punishment was abolished. The three persons concerned have spent over 25 years in prison. One is about to be released and he did not fire the weapon.
      We are in danger of having double standards. If Parliament decides that we should not have capital punishment to protect the thin blue line who protect every man and woman in this country against armed criminals and terrorists, I shall find it difficult to support the retention of capital punishment for offences committed by young soldiers, sailors or airmen, who, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South pointed out, may have been terrified during what he—or these days she—may have had to face in the heat of battle.
      The House must make up its mind and decide where it stands. If we are not to have capital punishment for the murder of a civilian or a police officer, we should abolish it altogether. For the first time, I shall vote against the retention of capital punishment, because I believe that we should be consistent.
      On 17 December 1990, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary urged the House not to abolish capital punishment for the crime of treason. When I was preparing for that debate, I looked up the reason why capital punishment existed for that crime. I discovered that it was introduced as an act of mercy and as an alternative to being burnt at the stake or being hung, drawn and quartered. We are still waiting for the results of consultations with the Law Commission on whether that penalty for treason should be removed from the statute book once and for all.
      If we are to abolish capital punishment for the murder of a policeman, let us get rid of it for the offences referred to in the report and for treason as well. Then, we and every police officer in the country will know where we stand.
      Mr. Peter Archer: The House will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courageous speech. Is he aware that, although we were told in December that the Law Commission was reconsidering the crime of treason, my information is that it is doing no such thing and that it has still not considered it?
      Mr. Shersby: I am interested in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. Recently, my pen has hovered over a question paper several times with the thought that I would ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what progress was being made. I desisted because, with such an illustrious body as the Law Commission, such matters are not decided overnight. However, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am interested in when the Law Commission will deliberate and decide. Frankly, I think that it should do that, so that if Parliament should ever again consider the question of capital punishment, it will be able to do so with a clean slate. We would then have no capital punishment for the murder of a civilian, a police officer, a member of the armed services or for treason.
      7 pm
      Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I was unable to do so at the conclusion of my speech. He adduces the argument that we are considering the example of a poor frightened soldier who, in the heat of battle, is unwise enough to commit one of the service offences. He has argued that, therefore, we should not retain the possibility of a discretionary death sentence being invoked against him. But what about someone who takes careful, calculated, premeditated action, perhaps by inciting others to mutiny and planning it for some time or who assists the enemy in a way that could be catastrophic to his friends and colleagues, perhaps by allowing terrorists to place a bomb in a crucial installation in Northern Ireland? We should not be carried away by the emotive example of the poor soldier in battle, with whom we sympathise greatly, because we should look at the wider issues, which are crucial.
      Mr. Shersby: I believe that I can reply to my hon. Friend briefly. In 1966 three armed men set about, deliberately, an act of armed robbery. They were stopped by three brave Metropolitan police officers, Detective Sergeant Christopher Head, Constable Geoffrey Fox and Detective Constable David Wombwell. Those three Metropolitan officers were shot dead by the three armed men. One of those men is still in prison, one died 10 years ago and the other is about to be released. If the death penalty is not to be available to prevent more police officers from being shot dead in cold blood—hon. Members will be aware of one or two other cases in the past three years—I do not believe that we can apply different standards in war. A war is going on in the streets of the country and our policemen and policewomen act to prevent that and to protect us.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) represents a neighbouring constituency to mine and, although I deeply respect his remarks, I do not believe that we can apply double standards. We must either reintroduce the death penalty for the murder of a police officer or get rid of it for certain military offences.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I welcome the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. An offence may be committed by someone who is frightened and unable to face the heat of battle, but what about someone who by a deliberate and cold-blooded act chooses to put this colleagues and perhaps his country in danger? No one is seeking to argue that that person should get away with it, but he should not necessarily suffer the death penalty as a result of a court martial. He could be put on trial and given a heavy prison sentence. Where is the need for the death sentence? No one who opposes the clause has explained why a person in such circumstances should meet his end by being hanged or at the hands of a firing squad.
      Mr. Shersby: The hon. Lady has made her point well and I do not believe that I can add to it.
      I have made my case and I have nothing more to say except that I believe that we should have consistent standards on what is the ultimate deterrent and penalty. The House made a decision in December and I suspect that it will make a similar one tonight.
      Mr. Peter Viggers: On several occasions during his speech the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) referred to the reintroduction of the death

      77
      penalty or, as he said, putting the death penalty back into the law. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would agree that the clause relates to whether we should remove a penalty that now exists which can be used against individuals who are guilty of serious service offences. Such offences are committed not in peacetime but at a time of war or armed conflict and amount to hazarding the lives of comrades or putting the security of the country at risk. We are considering whether to change the law, but I believe that the law should stay unchanged.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who was Chairman of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, outlined the circumstances in which the Select Committee came to its conclusion. He said that the Committee was minded that the law should remain as it was.
      I was the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill that was considered five years ago. We considered the retention of the death penalty and took evidence from the Ministry of Defence. Five years ago the Committee decided that the penalty should remain part of the law. It would be unwise of the House today to fail to take cognisance of the evidence put before the Select Committee this year and five years ago from the Ministry of Defence which, having considered the matter with all the seriousness it deserves, recommended that the death penalty for certain offences should remain,

      The hon. Member for Motherwell, North made a good, skilful speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) has already said. The hon. Gentleman almost had the Committee believing that any hon. Member who wanted the law to remain was almost guilty of criticising our armed forces.
      Gosport has more armed forces personnel than any other constituency. The good people of Gosport considered the selection and election of a Member of Parliament and they were broad-minded enough to elect someone who had served in the Royal Air Force and the Territorial Army. I believe that members of the armed forces, of whom I represent so many and with whom I am proud to maintain contact, want the death penalty to be retained for extreme cases where an individual or a group has hazarded the lives of comrades, put them at peril, and hazarded the security of the country. I believe that the law should remain as it is, and that the death penalty should remain for a limited range of cases.
      Mr. Brazier: All hon. Members who have spoken today have shown enormous concern for the welfare of the armed forces. I hope that the House will accept that I, too, have shown concern for the armed forces in the short time I have been here. Unlike the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), I have never seen action in war, although both my father and grandfather were wounded in action.
      The speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reed) was interesting and sincere. This debate is not about impugning the honour of our armed forces—far from it. It is about keeping faith with our armed forces, the vast majority of whom have gone to war and would go again in the future with the best possible spirit.
      I should like to recount an incident that did not reach the pages of history, except in an account of one lance-corporal. In the battle up the spine of the Appennines, a small village was held by a much depleted
      78
      company of a unit which was part of a regiment with which I was associated some years ago in the Territorial Army. The unit was cut off for about 24 hours by a German force. During that time one of the unit's members who had deserted on two previous occasions and who had been recaptured was held down below in a cellar.
      It is some years since I read the lance-corporal's account of the incident, but, if I remember rightly, as the Germans closed in on the unit the man in the cellar called out, "You stupid idiots. In a few hours' time you will all be dead and I'll be eating sauerkraut".
      The position was not captured by the Germans as the unit was reinforced after a counter attack by other British soldiers. If that man had gone beyond abuse and had used a firearm to kill his commander or other crucial personnel to assist the enemy, would it be right that the Army should not have the sanction, even in principle, of the death penalty? I firmly believe that it should have that sanction.
      We have had a long debate on this matter and I do not want to detain the House, but I must deal with the red herring which has been raised about treason. Several hon. Members voted in favour of abolishing that civil offence. It is being examined in the wider context of constitutional arrangements anyway. I firmly believe that, whatever the considerations on that, it is right that the armed forces should have the right to enforce the death penalty, subject always to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
      I sympathise strongly with what has been said on the subject of discretion. Plainly, it is not possible to determine in the common sense concept of war when armed forces are legally at war. We have hardly ever declared war. In only a small number of the incidents in which our armed forces have been in action this century has there been a formal declaration of war. That is why it must be left to the discretion of the Government whether or not the powers are enforced.
      We are not discussing a sanction which has been used in the past 40 years. Nor are we discussing whether we trust our armed forces: of course, we do. It is clear from all the speeches that the House is united in its admiration for our armed forces. We are discussing whether in exceptional circumstances the ultimate sanction should be available in cases such as the one that I described. I urge the Committee to reject clause 17.
      Mr. Higgins: I join with hon. Members on both sides who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Minister on his election to the Privy Council and I wish him well in his office.
      I assure Labour Front-Bench Members that we on this side of the Committee are on a free vote. That being so, it seemed appropriate to come to listen to the arguments. I had no intention whatever of making a speech, but I have been provoked to do so not least by my right hon. Friend. Several points need to be clarified.
      It is fortunate that we are having this debate following the Select Committee report which went into the matter in considerable detail. I read some of the arguments with interest. Some people take a moral line on the argument about capital punishment, but the crux is whether the deterrent effect is sufficient to outweigh the risk of mistakes. That argument remains the central point in this debate. Therefore, let us first consider whether mistakes are likely to be made.
      Some witnesses expressed the view that there was less likely to be a mistake in a case involving capital

      79
      punishment in military operations than in civilian ones. I find that surprising. In the heat of battle, the witnesses themselves are involved in highly emotional circumstances, so it is far more likely that they will be genuinely mistaken than the witness of a murder who is in a sense a bystander. Therefore, mistakes are more likely to be made at a court martial than in a civilian case.
      The Chairman of the Select Committee asked:
      "Is there a precise definition for what constitutes misconduct in action?"
      Several examples were given. Then the witness added:
      "There is one other thing, to be complete, if I may Mr. Chairman, and it is, if he fails to use the utmost exertions to carry the lawful orders of his superior officers into execution."
      My goodness, the appraisal by someone else in action of whether someone was using his "utmost exertions" must be open to doubt. At the very least, mistakes are as likely to be made in this area as in civilian cases. We already know of a large number of civilian cases in which, if we had not abolished capital punishment some years ago, innocent people would have been hanged. The issue is, to say the least, finely balanced.
      The next question is whether the penalty constitutes a deterrent. It is a greater deterrent if the penalty is certain. The less certain the penalty, the less likely it is to deter. What provoked me to intervene was my right hon. Friend's speech. As I understand it, he said that the penalty would not be applied in peacetime, but that we could not be certain whether we were in time of peace or war. We were further told that, moreover, in peacetime the Secretary of State would be obliged to overrule any decision by a court martial to impose the death penalty. I hope that my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong. In other words, neither we nor anybody who might be deterred by the death penalty knows whether the Secretary of State would be so obliged because we would not know whether we were in time of war.
      Again, if I understand correctly, the situation was uncertain during the Falklands war. We do not know whether the death penalty might have been imposed at that time, whether or not it was time of war or whether or not the Secretary of State would have been obliged to overrule any decision of a court martial.
      My right hon. Friend was unsure what form such a death penalty might take—whether by firing squad or hanging. He thought that it would be by firing squad, although the last execution was by hanging. It is absolutely clear that, however the House votes tonight—I do not know how it will vote—the present uncertainties must be cleared up. We cannot leave the matter as it is tonight. The House should be a great deal clearer about the law than my right hon. Friend suggested in his opening remarks.
      Mr. Tony Benn: I have been moved to speak by the debate, but I shall be brief.
      While listening to the arguments about the uncertain definition of times of peace or war, my mind went back to 1956 when I served in the House during the Suez war. I asked Sir Anthony Eden whether we were at war. We were not. We never declared war against Egypt. The following day I had a letter from an RAF pilot in Cyprus. He believed that he would be sent into action against Egypt but that it would be an act of aggression, and he asked what he should do. He knew that I had served in the air force. I replied, as I am bound to do, that he must make
      80
      his decision on the ground of conscience. As I understand it, it is possible that that man would have been liable for the penalty although he had a conscientious objection to bombing a country with which we were not at war. Such are the real matters which the Minister must address.
      Many cases involve, not cowardice or a lack of moral fibre, which was the phrase tossed about during the war, but a conscientious objection. William Douglas-Home, the brother of a former Prime Minister, was court martialled for refusing to bomb Caen during the war because he had a moral objection to bombing civilian targets. Those matters cannot conceivably be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, whether or not it is peacetime and whether or not the death penalty is used.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I had a conversation with a Conservative Member who also served as an officer at the time of Suez. He told me that, because he felt that what was going on was morally unacceptable, as far as he could guarantee it he wanted to make damned sure that none of his troops was caught up in it. That might also fall within the definition that we are discussing. It is a further example from the same period which affected an hon. Member.
      Mr. Benn: Many examples could be given, but it is clear that it is not a straightforward question of defiance of orders in time of war. It is a very complicated matter. The Minister is asking the House to overturn a decision of the Committee and make it possible in moments of great uncertainty, when motives may be very different, to court-martial and execute a member of the armed forces. I do not believe that to be right.
      Dr. Reid: I am mindful of the time, so I shall sum up as briefly as possible the case that I put earlier and respond to some of the points that have been made.
      First, may I offer my belated congratulations to the Minister on joining the Privy Council. It was not because of pique that I did not do so earlier—we all get there some time. I am sure that he deserves it. Whether the Privy Council deserves him is an open question, and I would allow a free vote on that, as we are to have tonight on the death penalty.
      I have suggested that the death penalty, as applicable in the armed services, is an anachronism. We are told that it is not used in peacetime on principle. It has not been used for almost 50 years during hostilities in which British forces have been involved. The terms "peacetime" and "war" are ill defined at the very least; that has been illustrated by the Minister tonight.
      The discretion that the court martial and the Minister are allowed to make a decision under the terms of those definitions is equally ill defined. The death penalty is not applicable even to terrorists, or to those whose acts against our service men and women may result in the loss of their lives. It is not needed by many of our allies, including members of NATO. Even in countries other than our allies where the death penalty is retained—for example, Iraq —it does not achieve a deterrent effect.
      It was argued earlier that the death penalty should be retained in principle. That is the most incredible argument. A person is not executed in principle; he is executed in practice. The theory of deterrence, whether in this example or in others, depends on the belief that the deterrent is not there only in principle. A deterrent is a deterrent only if its

      81
      use in practice is credible. To argue for its retention in principle is a departure from not only the armed services discipline Acts, but the general rule of deterrence.
      We are in danger of operating double standards, because we are arguing for the retention of the death penalty, which the House has consistently rejected for acts of terrorism or for the murder of policemen. I shall give just one piece of advice to the civilians in the Chamber tonight who are prepared to vote on this matter—that applies to 90 per cent. of hon. Members: do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. The House has consistently made clear, and enshrined in law, the belief that the death penalty should not apply to civilians. It would be a double standard if civilian hon. Members voted for the death penalty to apply to non-civilians in the armed forces.
      I ascribe no malevolent intentions—no wish to attack or cast slurs on the armed forces—to hon. Members who vote tonight to retain the death penalty. However, whatever subjective motivations hon. Members may have, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from a vote for the retention of the death penalty for members of the British armed forces when it is not required by many of our allies is that our troops can be expected to exercise discipline and good order only when the threat of death hangs over their heads. Whether or not it is meant as a slur, I believe that it is a criticism of our armed forces—perhaps subconscious, but nevertherless undeserved.
      I believe that the death penalty is an anachronism and a barbaric instrument. Rather than countenancing the burial of one more of our service men, we would do better to bury the death penalty for the armed forces.
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: May I begin by saying how grateful I am to hon. Members for their kind references to my entry in the honours list on Saturday. Acquaintances and members of my family have asked me what it means. I understand that it involves an advisory role to Her Majesty the Queen. With no disrespect to Her Majesty, I have likened it to a long-service and good-conduct medal given to members of the armed forces. I have occasionally presented such medals, and I have asked the person what he has done to deserve it. I invariably receive the same reply—years of undetected crimes. I am grateful to you, Miss Boothroyd, for allowing me to digress. That is clearly not the subject that we are discussing this evening.
      Safeguards were referred to earlier. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised the question of mistakes. Any sentence has to go through a number of stages. First, a court martial cannot accept a plea of guilty to an offence that carries the death penalty. Secondly, the court must reach a unanimous decision. Thirdly, if the death sentence is passed—it is an optional, not a mandatory, sentence—it is subject to confirmation by a senior officer, which in this case means a major-general or above. After that, the sentence is subject to review by the defence council. The death penalty cannot be carried out until that procedure has been complied with. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. Mistakes can still be made, but much is done to provide as many safeguards as possible.
      The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) questioned whether the death penalty was an effective deterrent, as did other hon. Members. The death sentence is like an insurance policy. Hon. Members who argue for the retention of the clause must ask
      82
      themselves whether we can afford to run the risk of removing that deterrent. If the effect of such offences were small, we probably could. However, the offences involved could have a major effect on the operation concerned, such as the outcome of a war and, thus, the safety of the state. We cannot be sure of the degree of deterrence or how any individual mind might be affected. The Government believe that it is right to maintain the possibility of the death penalty as the ultimate sanction for service offences.
      The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) raised the question of the IRA and the position in Northern Ireland. It can be argued that the IRA falls within the definition of "the enemy" under the defence discipline Acts. It is true that service men in Northern Ireland could, theoretically, be prosecuted for the offences that attract the death penalty. I am absolutely clear that, in the exceptionally unlikely event of the death sentence being passed in the hypothetical case in Northern Ireland to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it would certainly be commuted by the Secretary of State for Defence.
      The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the person who simply could not face up to the idea of fighting. Taking no action would not fall into the group of five service offences; however, an action likely to imperil the success of an operation would. Again, the death sentence is only one option that is open to the court martial. Those who "chickened out", or refused to "go over the top", would not be committing one of the five offences.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned double standards. As I understood it, his argument was that, if we were not prepared to agree to the death penalty for the killing of policemen, we should abolish it altogether. That strikes me as a strange argument. If he holds that view, surely my hon. Friend should hold out for the day when the House may change its mind about the death penalty for the killing of policemen. Abolishing the death penalty altogether would, as far as I can see, remove any chance of its being reintroduced for the killing of policemen. It is not beyond possibility that, at some time in the future, after a spate of police killings, the House might change its mind. If at that stage no death penalty existed for any offence, it would be very difficult for it to be reintroduced at all.
      7.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) asked why a distinction should be made between war and peace. The offences concerned may attract the death penalty only when there is an intention to assist the enemy. By their very nature, such offences are likely to be committed only in wartime. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that it would be extremely difficult to draft legislation that applied only in wartime. It is very difficult to define wartime—the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing are also relevant here. It is hard to be precise about when a state of war exists.
      The Government have concluded that it is necessary to retain a degree of flexibility, because it is impossible to provide for every situation that might arise, relying on the safeguards provided by the use of this extreme penally. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing was also worried about the definition of a state of hostilities. Surely we know when a state of hostilities exists, even if war has

      83
      not been declared: that is reasonably straightforward. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised the question of the declaration of war. It has happened rarely in the recent past. There was no declaration of war over the Falklands or the Gulf, but the existence of a state of hostilities is pretty clear and understandable to most people.
      Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I think that you know what it is. It is very difficult to hear what the Minister is saying because of the number of people who are standing beyond the Bar talking.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I was so enthralled by what the Minister was saying that I did not notice, but, if that is the case, hon. Members standing below the Bar who do not intend to sit down should continue their conversations quietly, so that the rest of us can listen to this important winding-up speech.
      Mr. Hamilton: You flatter me, Miss Boothroyd.
      As has been said by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, this is no time to re-run the arguments about capital punishment. It is worth reminding ourselves, however, that in December the House voted to retain the mandatory death sentence for the crime of treason, and the crimes that we are now considering are very closely related to treason. There will be a free vote tonight, and there is no question of the payroll vote or anyone else being whipped to support the clause.
      I hope that, when hon. Members on both sides of the Committee exercise their consciences, they will ask themselves whether it is sensible, if we are to change our whole attitude to capital punishment for treason-related offences, to start with the Armed Forces Bill. If it is right to remove the death sentence for treason—and that is debatable—it must surely be right to remove it initially for civilian offences, and then to review the position of the armed forces.
      The hon. Member for Motherwell, North referred to our heroes returning from the Gulf—and they were heroes indeed. It goes without saying that none of those men has been charged with any of these offences, but they were doubtless reassured to know that, if any of their colleagues had transgressed—given the enormity of the result that might have followed, namely, the death of a large number of them through enemy action—the penalty was in place and provided them with protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said, this is a question of keeping faith with our service men. I am sure that they do not want any change in the law.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 228.

      Division No. 175]

      [7.35 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

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

      Alton, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Amos, Alan

      Blunkett, David

      Anderson, Donald

      Boateng, Paul

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ashby, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Caborn, Richard

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cartwright, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      84

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cohen, Harry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Corbett, Robin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McAllion, John

      Cryer, Bob

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cummings, John

      McKelvey, William

      Darling, Alistair

      McLeish, Henry

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maclennan, Robert

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      McWilliam, John

      Dixon, Don

      Madden, Max

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Meale, Alan

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Eadie, Alexander

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eastham, Ken

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mullin, Chris

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Pendry, Tom

      Flynn, Paul

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foster, Derek

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Foulkes, George

      Radice, Giles

      Fraser, John

      Raffan, Keith

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Randall, Stuart

      George, Bruce

      Redmond, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Reid, Dr John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Richardson, Jo

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Robertson, George

      Ground, Patrick

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hain, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hardy, Peter

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Haynes, Frank

      Shersby, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Short, Clare

      Home Robertson, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Howells, Geraint

      Stern, Michael

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Strang, Gavin

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Vaz, Keith

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wallace, James

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Ward, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Kennedy, Charles

      Winnick, David

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lambie, David

      Mrs. Marie Fyfe and

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Mr. Harry Barnes.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Alexander, Richard

      Brazier, Julian

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Allason, Rupert

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Amess, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burns, Simon

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butcher, John

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Butler, Chris

      Atkinson, David

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baldry, Tony

      Carttiss, Michael

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Bellingham, Henry

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bendall, Vivian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Chope, Christopher

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Colvin, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cope, Rt Hon John

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

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Cran, James

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

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

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      85

      Devlin, Tim

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Dicks, Terry

      Mates, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Dunn, Bob

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Mills, Iain

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Evennett, David

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Fallon, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mudd, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Needham, Richard

      French, Douglas

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gale, Roger

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Norris, Steve

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Gorst, John

      Page, Richard

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Paice, James

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Gregory, Conal

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Pawsey, James

      Hague, William

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hannam, John

      Price, Sir David

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

      Redwood, John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Harris, David

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Hayward, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rost, Peter

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Hill, James

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hind, Kenneth

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

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

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shelton, Sir William

      Irvine, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Jack, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Janman, Tim

      Sims, Roger

      Jessel, Toby

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, James

      Speed, Keith

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Speller, Tony

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Squire, Robin

      Knapman, Roger

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Steen, Anthony

      Knowles, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stokes, Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Sumberg, David

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thorne, Neil

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tracey, Richard

      Mans, Keith

      Tredinnick, David

      Marland, Paul

      Trippier, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Trotter, Neville

      86

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wilkinson, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Wood, Timothy

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Yeo, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Watts, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. David Davis.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clauses 18 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 28

      SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 24, line 43, leave out `1st September 1991' and insert `1st January 1992'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
      Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.49 pm
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      It is right that the Bill should be generally well received in the House because it makes improvements to the service discipline Acts, many of which bring service law more closely into line with civilian law. That is particularly true of the provisons in parts II and III of the Bill relating to young offenders and children at risk in service families overseas. In this way, and by the careful scrutiny given to discipline matters generally during the passage of the Bill through the House, I believe that the Acts can continue to command the respect and confidence of the service men, service women and civilians to whom they apply.
      I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) chaired the Select Committee on the Bill with unfailing courtesy and fairness. The Committee conducted not only a thorough examination of the Bill itself, but a wide-ranging review of matters related to discipline in the armed forces. Its report makes a number of important recommendations for the future which will all be given careful consideration and be the subject of a full response in due course.
      It is our responsibility to ensure that the system of discipline, on which the efficiency and effectiveness of the work of the armed forces so much depends, strikes a sensible balance between the rights of service men and women as citizens and the extra constraints which must necessarily be imposed. I am confident that the Bill will serve to ensure that the service discipline Acts continue to meet the needs of the services and command their confidence. I commend it to the House.
      7.52 pm
      Dr. Reid: Naturally, I am disappointed that clause 17 has been removed; it was an important part of the Bill and probably the most important part of the reforms to the service discipline Acts. However, I predict that, once the recommendations of the Law Commission on the death penalty are known, there may be a majority of Members in the Aye Lobby.

      87
      Despite that disappointment, I promised earlier that we would not be obstructive about the discipline Acts incorporated in the Bill. Therefore, we shall not raise objections and we shall not vote against the Bill. That is important because, as the Minister said, the quinquennial review gives us the opportunity to reappraise the service discipline Acts and procedures in the light of practical experience, and in the context of changes in the civilian law and in public opinion and perception. Such reappraisals are important and debates such as this provide a vital opportunity to conduct them. Therefore, I should not like the debate to pass without making one or two comments.
      Discipline and order are integral parts of the quality of the armed forces, whether in peacetime or during hostilities. Of all forms of discipline applicable to our armed forces, by far the most efficient, effective and prevalent is self-discipline. We should like it to be recorded at the outset that, although we have spent time in Committee and on the Floor of the House discussing breaches in rules and regulations, and the punishment and penalty for those breaches, such measures are applicable only in a small number of cases involving service men and women. For the vast majority of such cases, the best, and often the only, discipline necessary is that which springs from the service men and women's own determination, commitment and dedication, for which we give them credit.
      Where the service discipline Acts have to be applied, it is important that they are seen to be practicable, efficient and, above all, fair. We in Parliament have no less a duty to our service men and women—simply because they voluntarily place themselves under the jurisdiction of military authority—than to civilians. It can be argued that, precisely because service personnel voluntarily accept the sacrifices that such a military regime entails, it is our duty to scrutinise the Acts and the Bill to a greater degree than other legislation, if that is possible.
      I believe that, with one or two significant exceptions, the Select Committee acquitted itself well. The starting point for our deliberations was the premise that, wherever possible, forces law should approximate as closely as possible to civilian law. Therefore, it is right that the legal advances incorporated in two major Acts—the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Children Act 1989—should be enshrined in the Bill and extended to the services.
      Therefore, we welcome the provisions in parts II and III of the Bill which extend the obligations of explanation to courts martial and standing civilian courts where young offenders are involved and impose a greater burden of consideration on military courts in relation to custodial sentences and young offenders. Part II also allows for compensation payments and ensures that they are given precedence above fines. It enhances the scope for the imposition of compensation payments. We also welcome those advances.
      Part III reflects the growing concern about the protection of children felt throughout the country in recent years. I believe that there has been wide agreement in Committee and throughout the House that the general thrust of the changes—largely drawn from the Children Act, but modified to take account of service life—will be beneficial to all involved.
      88
      Those factors represent the major thrust of the changes in the Bill, and the Opposition support and welcome its provisions. The problem is that the Bill does not go very far. There are a number of issues integral to and related to discipline, order and morale that the Opposition would like to have seen addressed. Thankfully, most of those issues were addressed in Committee and, in some cases, progress was made. That shows the particular benefit of such an ad hoc Select Committee, rare—some would say, peculiar—though it may be, and I hope that such a procedure will continue in future.
      I have been advised that the appropriate time for commenting on the wider issues related to the Bill, but not specifically covered by it, is during the debate on the continuation order. Therefore, I shall hope to speak then. Meanwhile, the Opposition will not vote against the Bill which, no doubt, will proceed on its way through the House with alacrity.
      7.58 pm
      Mr. Wilkinson: I take this opportunity to thank, not only my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but the officials and service men of the Ministry of Defence, who greatly assisted Select Committee members with their inquiries and were hospitable and informative when they made field visits in this country and in Germany.
      Like the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), I believe that this form of parliamentary procedure is an admirable legislative mechanism. Unlike the normal Standing Committee procedure, it enables hon. Members to take the advice of those professionally engaged in the relevant activity—in this case, the maintenance of good service discipline, order and morale.
      I had the privilege of chairing the Committee. The report that we produced will summarise all the points that I could make on Third Reading, so I shall not make them now. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister and his Ministry will respond to the recommendations that we made, which we believe speak for themselves. That said, I wish the Bill godspeed and a satisfactory Third Reading.
      8 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I join in congratulating the Select Committee and its Chairman on the production of a report that is of great assistance to those right hon. and hon. Members who have an interest in the matter but did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee.
      It is clear from any reading of the notes of evidence that the cross-examination was, from time to time, robust. However, it was obviously undertaken with the best intention—that of eliciting the most accurate, helpful, and up-to-date information. The notes of evidence make interesting and illuminating reading, giving as they do a clear insight into the thinking of many of those within the Ministry of Defence who are most directly concerned with service discipline matters.
      I want to touch on a matter that probably would not fall under the continuation order, but relates to the consolidation of existing service discipline legislation. It is axiomatic that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It has always seemed to me to be a necessary part of that axiom that the law should be readily ascertainable and easily understandable. For the moment, that cannot be said of the myriad bits of legislation in which provisions relating

      89
      to service discipline are to be found. It is notable that one of those who gave evidence to the Committee strongly expressed the opinion that it would be in the interests of all if, at an early date, some consolidation and revision of that legislation were to take place.
      I hope that the Minister understands the importance of that comment. Such action may not lie entirely within his power. Other Departments may have a more direct influence on the speed with which such consolidation and revision can be achieved. However, there is little point in creating a code or structure of service discipline of which we can be proud if we cannot be proud of the circumstances in which it can be understood and readily ascertained. That is one of the Committee's most important recommendations, and one which bears precisely and strongly on the Bill.
      There is nothing more that I can usefully add, except that I shall not endeavour to delay the progress of the Bill, which seems entirely right and proper. It may not go far enough, but as far as it does go, it represents a comprehensive piece of work by those responsible for it. As it embodies some of the principles and changes to service law that the passage of time has made necessary, the sooner that the Bill passes through the House, the better.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Armed Forces (Discipline)
8.3 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services, for a further four months from 31 August, which is the date on which they would otherwise expire unless renewed before then either by primary legislation or by Order in Council. Under the Armed Forces Act 1986, no Order in Council may ex tend the Acts beyond 31 December 1991.
Over the past few months, the House has had the opportunity to consider service disciplinary procedures in depth during its consideration of the Armed Forces Bill. The first purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the Acts to continue in force for a further five years from the date on which they would otherwise expire. The House will be aware that, unless renewed by Act of Parliament or by Order in Council, the three service discipline Acts will currently expire on 31 August 1991. While I have every expectation that the Armed Forces Bill will be enacted before the summer recess, the order will simply ensure that there is no possibility that the Acts will expire without having been renewed. This is a prudent measure, and I invite the House to approve the order.
8.4 pm
Dr. John Reid: As I indicated earlier, we will not vote against the order, but we have some misgivings about it. We believe that there have been missed opportunities in Committee, not specifically in respect of the Bill, but of provisions that could have been added but which were missing from the start.
I was taught as a small boy that there are sins of commission and sins of omission. If the Bill has avoided any great sins of commission, it is guilty of sins of omission. That has been rectified to some extent by the work of the Committee and the report that it issued. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who unfortunately is not in his place, who said earlier that the Committee made a number of recommendations and that he looked forward to the Minister's responding to them.
In one or two instances, the Committee was wise enough to suggest a deadline by which a response was expected. It was also flexible enough to suggest a timetable in respect of longer-term items—though it may find that the response comes not from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces but from myself or from one of my hon. Friends, as we may be in power by the time that such a response falls due.
The changes that the Bill makes are welcome, but it does not go very far. A number of important issues are perennially raised in the House, and are raised quinquennially in Committee, but the Bill fails to add ress them. To be fair to the Government—as the Minister knows, I always try to be fair to them—a number of those issues would be difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate into the form that the Bill takes. Some are a matter of

91
regulation, administration or administrative practice, rather than of service law proper. However, other aspects could have been incorporated into the Bill and such omissions can be accounted for only by Government obstinacy or prejudice—or, in some cases, a combination of both.
Thankfully, those faults in what count as the higher echelons of the Conservative command structure did not always infect the foot soldiers in Committee, so on occasions we were able to make more advances in Committee than we could with the Government. However, even then we were unable to make much more progress than in previous years. In other instances the Government foot soldiers on the Committee, even when liberated by the absence on occasions of their Minister, could not be enticed in the direction of progress.
The Committee's recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should reconsider its opposition to ethnic monitoring of service personnel was a major step forward, and it is one which my party has urged for some time. Ensuring that our armed forces reflect the ethnic diversity of society at large is an aim which is based on the principle of racial equality and on the practical necessity of the recruitment and retention of service personnel in difficult demographic circumstances.
I am the first to admit that the Government have already made some move in the direction of combating racial discrimination and harassment, and of encouraging ethnic recruitment to the armed forces, and I pay them credit for that work.
It is ludicrous that the Ministry of Defence, which monitors the religious composition of the Ulster Defence Regiment in the north of Ireland—for the best of reasons, I hasten to add—and which maintains a system of ethnic monitoring for its civil servants, trenchantly refuses to extend ethnic monitoring to the armed forces. The Ministry should not have been allowed for so long to evade that responsibility for the armed forces. I hope that the Committee's recommendation will be expeditiously acted upon.
The Committee also recommends that the Ministry of Defence should consider how best to identify instances of racial harassment and keep records. In the past the Ministry has shown some willingness to tackle that problem, but, in the absence of statistical information, the MOD was fighting with one hand tied behind its back and it was impossible to judge to what extent the Ministry's actions were effective. The recommendation, if implemented, will free the Ministry from that self-imposed handicap and allow it to confront racial discrimination with the necessary vigour and determination. I am sure hon. Members agree that there is no place in the British armed forces for racial prejudice or discrimination.
We strongly support the proposed measures to protect the youngest of our service men and women, although such protection is no reflection on their courage or commitment. We entirely agree with the Committee's conclusion that there should at least be a presumption that those aged under 18 should not be sent on active service overseas unless there is some overriding requirement for their particular skills in the defence of the country. We expect some practical proposals on that by the time of the defence estimates. The Minister will be pleased to know,
92
given what is assumed to be the current timetable, that he will still be Minister of State for the Armed Forces by the time those estimates appear. A Government statement at that time will prove that the Ministry of Defence is capable of making some sort of announcement in this area, if not in others.
We entirely concur with the view that the terms of enlistment and, in particular, the terms of compulsory retention of recruited minors should be re-examined. We desperately need to get away from the Ministry's attitude and weltanschauung of trying to solve the problems of personnel retention in a volunteer service by methods that are applicable to a conscript service. The Committee was wise enough to set a timetable and will expect practical proposals by the time of the next continuation order. The Minister may not be lucky enough to announce such proposals.
The armed forces' attitude to homosexuality has been a vexatious issue for every quinquennial review Committee, especially because it is not just homosexual activity but homosexuality itself which is forbidden by service law. Any service man or woman who is found to be homosexual, even if non-practising, is liable to be discharged from the service. The Committee's recommendation, accepted somewhat surprisingly by both sides of the Committee, that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal under civilian law should not constitute an offence under service law is a small but significant mark of progress. The proposal would not prohibit discharge from the service, but at least it decriminalises homosexuality and prevents some of the ignominy of current procedures under which files are sent to the police for what is regarded as an offence under service law but which is no longer regarded as an offence under civilian law. That is a small step, but the Minister and Conservative Members are to be congratulated on being prepared to take it in the face of traditional prejudice. Measures carry a great deal more authority outside the House and have much more effect when it can be shown that there has been consensus, a non-partisan agreement, on the importance of issues and the necessity to move forward with them.
As is obvious from the Committee report, everyone recognises that the present policy, even with the small improvement that I have mentioned, causes great distress. More importantly from the point of view of the services, everybody recognises that the policy causes the loss to the services of men and women of undoubted competence and good character. The report says that that is beyond dispute.
The problem is to find a way forward which avoids that loss and which allows for the nature and circumstances of the armed forces which, I accept, are different from those in civilian life. If we do not find a solution, personnel will continue to be lost to the armed forces and people will be open to blackmail and will suffer unnecessary distress. That view was shared by most if not all members of the Committee.
The conflicting requirements of this issue will be resolved only by a deeper and wider examination. Even though it is not recommended in the report, we urge the Minister to consider the establishment of an inquiry composed of lay and legal people as well as military personnel to clarify the issues, to compare practice among our allies, and to present options for progress. That would be a meaningful step from the little progress that we have started.

93
Two other matters need attention. The first is the composition of courts martial. It is a cornerstone of British justice that an accused is entitled to trial by his or her peers. The most glaring exception to that, apart from the special courts that have been established from time to time in the north of Ireland, is courts martial at which the weighing of evidence, the arrival at a judgment and the passing of sentence is the exclusive prerogative of the officer class of the British armed forces.
I mean no disservice when I say that, despite considerable progress, more than half our officers have social backgrounds that are utterly alien to those upon whom they sit in judgment. Fewer than one fifth of the officers have experienced the service background of those whom they judge, because they have not come up through the ranks. They may be well placed by training and background to understand the legal side of the proceedings and to dispense legal judgments, but are they well enough placed to understand the social background and to dispense justice at courts martial composed exclusively of officers? The attributes that are necessary to exercise leadership are not necessarily the only qualities that are necessary to achieve equity and justice in the armed forces.
Before the Minister takes fright and reaches for his revolver, I should explain that we are not suggesting anything as revolutionary as rank and file courts. For the reasons that we have already given, we believe that many courts martial would benefit from the presence of a senior non-commissioned officer. We are not suggesting that it should be obligatory, but only that courts martial should have the ability to co-opt an NCO as a supplementary member. Such a member could bring a particular background, both social and armed services, to bear on what are often complex problems.
Furthermore, such an option would enhance the quality of courts martial. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the Government's objections to this proposal, although I have listened with great care to their objections. I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that there is no rational decision behind their refusal, but that, for all the fine words of their leader, somewhere, hidden away, the spirit of class rule is alive and well, even if temporarily dormant, and living in the Ministry of Defence. I have no doubt that, in the course of time, as with so many other attitudes embraced by the Government, this one will be washed up on the shores of history as the anachronism that it is.
My next subject—forces representation—is again a hardy annual on which the Government deploy circular arguments. We are told that there is no demand for forces representation. When we ask the simple question, "How do you know, as there is no representative body?", we are told that the forces are consulted by questionnaire. We then ask whether there is a question about forces representation and are told that there is not, but there is a space where members can put suggestions on forces representation if they so wish.
That is what used to be called inertia selling. Inertia selling of encyclopedias and pornographic material was outlawed some years ago. I cannot understand why the Ministry of Defence still accepts inertia selling in this case, when it is left to those who need representation to bring the issue forward, in the absence of any representative body. Some form of representative body, perhaps circumscribed by rules that prevent it from taking industrial action, perhaps akin to the Police Federation, would be of
94
undoubted benefit not only to service men and women but to the armed forces as a whole. Although we have been considering a Bill on discipline, morale is, and has been for many years, central to discipline.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that his argument about the representation of soldiers in a staff federation or something similar has a direct analogy with membership of a political party inasmuch as any member of the armed forces can be a member of a political party, but, by convention, takes no active part in the political activities of the party?
Dr. Reid: Yes, I accept that analogy. However, there is a problem, which will be obvious from the evidence. No one can tell me what constitutes activity, either in the membership of a political party or in a trade union.
In Committee, I asked whether service men and women were, for example, entitled to be members of the British Medical Association if they were doctors. I was told that they are allowed to be members, but not active members. I cannot find out what constitutes activity. Is it attending meetings, or accepting a post? It would be easier to circumscribe by definition an organisation that was set up for a specific purpose. One cannot do that with a specific party or the BMA, because such bodies have a membership that goes much wider than the armed forces. However, the activities of a federation exclusively related to the armed forces could be circumscribed. It is much more difficult to circumscribe, let alone define, the activities of members of the armed forces who belong to an organisation.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I think that I can help the lion. Gentleman in relation to the BMA. Service men can be members of the BMA and there is a BMA services committee. Knowing the way that the hon. Gentleman addresses these matters, I am sure that he will agree that we are talking about convention and common sense. There is no problem with membership of bodies such as the BMA.
Dr. Reid: I did not mean to ascribe a subversive motive to anybody working in the BMA. I was asking how one defined what constitutes activity within the BMA or a political party.
This issue is important because of its context. Representation will become more important because morale will become more important. Morale is becoming more important because the armed forces are going through traumatic changes. Eventually, we shall find out what "Options for Change" means for the British armed forces. We have had one or two teasers and I am sure that, somewhere in the Ministry of Defence, there is a strategic analysis on which policy is based. But then I have always been optimistic about the world, even if I have been pessimistic about the intellect.
Irrespective of which Government are in power, there will be substantive changes to the armed forces in the next few years. My worry is that they are being tackled An a rather piecemeal and cost-driven way. We may end up not only with a smaller budget for defence but with a redistribution of resources within that budget that is not based on strategic criteria and, because of a lack of a full review, omission of any consideration of the quality of life for service personnel. In other words, what is missing is the

95
three elements of fighting power, as defined in the British military doctrine: the conceptual element, the material element and—this is my worry—the morale element.
If, as I believe, the Government are not paying nearly enough attention to what one does with 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen, three quarters of whom do not own their own homes and will not get a council house and will not be retrained, and if we leave Hong Kong, Belize and perhaps even Germany, what will be the raison d'etre of the forces and their personnel? In these difficult circumstances, a representative body for armed forces personnel might be useful because it could tell us of their main reasons for insecurity, their fear and their concerns in a period of dramatic change.
Therefore, as a matter of principle and practice and of concrete assistance in the present circumstances, the Minister and the Government should have shown more sympathy towards the idea of a staff federation. That idea has been rejected; I hope that it will not be rejected indefinitely.
I have described the main points that the Opposition would like to have been included in the order and that were not included. However, the provisions in the order, as far as they go, do not present any great difficulties for us, so we do not intend to vote against the continuation order. It makes sense as a fall-back position and none of us would benefit if the discipline Acts for the three services were to fall in the absence of the continuation order.
8.29 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I want to raise a number of issues before we consider whether the continuation order should be approved. I want to raise disciplinary matters that were covered in the Select Committee report on the Armed Forces Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) raised the questions of racial harassment and of racial discrimination. If the Ministry of Defence refuses to identify cases of racial harassment and if it does not monitor them, it can pretend that racial harassment does not exist in the armed forces. We all know that the contrary is true.
I remember that we had difficulties in getting the Metropolitan police to start taking seriously the incidence of racial harassment in Greater London. They felt that it was a problem that was best left covered for a variety of reasons—some good, but most bad. Racial harassment was generally seen as being a matter of disputes between neighbours and nothing really racial. It took us a long time to convince the Metropolitan police that they needed to begin to become involved in monitoring racial harassment cases. Now that they do monitor such cases, their clear-up rate and the way in which they apply their forces are highly commendable. There is still a long way to go, but we have managed to get somewhere. The same pressure should now be put on the Ministry of Defence. Although the Ministry has accepted in certain respects the need for the ethnic monitoring of recruitment, it must take matters a lot further. Racial harassment and racial discrimination are linked, so it is important for the Ministry of Defence to examine cases of racial harassment.
On Friday, I went to the Theatre Royal, Stratford to see a play called "Black Poppies". It originated from a group
96
of black actors who worked for the royal national theatre workshop and is based on the real experiences of black service men in our armed forces. Some 40 hours of tape recordings were taken from those who were either current or former service men and a play was devised from that. It was a powerful play. One can often get powerful messages across through the arts, so it is a great pity that the play has finished its run. It was highly successful and played in the east end of London to large black audiences who recognised the validity of what was being said. The important point is that the play was authentic. It did not involve someone adapting the news or using poetic licence to try to push a particular point. It was based on the personal experiences of black service men. It was powerful theatre and presented a powerful argument.
The run finished on Saturday and I very much regret that I cannot ask the Minister to come at my expense to the Theatre Royal, Stratford in my constituency to see the play. If he did, he would get as angry as I did on Friday when I realised that discrimination and harassment take place in our armed forces. People who volunteer for our professional forces find themselves abused, attacked and treated in a way in which no human being should be treated. I understand that the racism is often institutionalised. Officers, especially non-commissioned officers, are clearly involved. The stories in the play were so true that they put across a powerful message.
It is important that the Ministry of Defence takes the matter seriously. I am disappointed that, when it responded to the report, it did not say more about what would be done. It was not an official response, but a response in the course of discussions. I am disappointed and I am sure that those who served on the Select Committee were also disappointed.
The obverse of racial harassment is racial discrimination in the armed forces. The two issues are inextricably linked. There is no ethnic monitoring in the armed forces. I asked a question about that recently. The matter intrigued me, perhaps because I am a generally nosey person. I asked what the highest rank achieved by a black service man or woman was because I was impressed to see that General Colin Powell had made it right to the top in the United States. The Minister replied that the Ministry did not know the answer because it did not use ethnic monitoring. One does not need to operate ethnic monitoring to find the answer. It is pretty self-evident whether someone is black and it would not take long to work out the answer by examining the armed services. The fact is that the Government simply do not know and they do not appear to want to know, which is wrong for a number of reasons.
The main reason is that if there is to be ethnic monitoring of recruitment, one cannot see whether recruitment is successful if one does not continue to monitor the person right the way through the armed forces. Why, for example, do black people leave the armed forces? I should have thought that the Minister of Defence would have wanted the answer to that question which is central to its considerations of further policy. The only way to answer that question is to monitor ethnically. If there is no ethnic monitoring, someone who leaves is recorded merely as another serving officer who has left. Many do leave. If we do not know whether it was a black individual who left, we cannot know whether the ethnic monitoring of recruitment is working. There should be a debriefing process in the Ministry of Defence and people

97
should be asked why they are leaving. The answer may be, "Because I cannot stand the racial harassment and the racial victimisation" in the regiment or platoon. The Ministry cannot at present take the necessary remedial action.
If the Government are saying that they are not prepared to have ethnic monitoring, they are saying that the problem of racial harassment and victimisation in the armed forces does not exist. Any senior serving officer to whom one talks will say that he does not allow it to exist. But it seems to exist at a level at which some of the most senior officers are unaware of the problem, as is the Minister. I assume that if he was aware of the problem, he would take dramatic steps to deal with it.
The matter of women in the services is also covered in the report. I want to link that point with the courts martial which were also mentioned in the report. A dramatic case hit all our newspapers last week. It concerned two young people who were court martialled for being found together in quarters in which they should not have been together. I was surprised. I recently asked whether all courts martial were held in public. That shows my level of knowledge, although I believe that the only way to acquire knowledge is to admit ignorance. I did not realise that all courts martial were held in public. The two young people had committed no crime in terms of the civilian world. They would not have been in a civilian court, yet because of the disciplinary procedures of the armed forces, they found themselves at a court martial. They then found that they were subject to something much worse than a court martial—trial by media and by newspapers. The headlines in the tabloids and in the more serious newspapers were appalling. I will not mention those two young people's names because they have suffered enough. Indeed, I suspect that both their lives are ruined as of this moment. The Minister should take such matters into account.
The matter arose specifically from the publicity surrounding the non-touching rule as it affected serving officers in the Gulf and what would be done when Wrens were serving on battleships in the Gulf. One knew that this incident would be regarded as a good story by those swollen-nosed hacks who frequent Wapping but one did not really expect to see the sort of copy that actually appeared in The Sun. which I must put on record. The report is headed
"Wren's Nude Romp with Lt".
The House will note the sexist nature and language of that headline. It did not refer, for example, to a "nude lieutenant's romp with Wren." The story read:
"A randy Wren was caught naked with a dashing navy lieutenant".
You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the woman is randy whereas the lieutenant—the man—is dashing. One can see from the headline and from the opening words that the blame lies entirely with the woman.
I do not propose to titillate hon. Members; I am sure that they will have seen the story in the newspapers. The newspaper showed pictures of the young woman concerned, and those pictures are remarkably clear. I do not know where those concerned got them from, but they looked like studio portraits. That was not the case with the pictures of the so-called dashing lieutenant. I have sympathy for him as well because I would not like to be stuck on a ship somewhere in the Gulf away from my good lady wife—although I hasten to assure her, should she ever get round to reading Hansard, that I would be utterly loyal
98
to her. The fact is, however, that the picture of the dashing lieutenant is incredibly fuzzy. It would be difficult to recognise such a dashing lieutenant or, indeed, such a dashing lieutenant's wife—that picture, too, is remarkably fuzzy. I do not criticise. I congratulate those concerned on their good fortune, but one is bound to contrast their pictures with that of the Wren. The newspapers were trying to take advantage of that story to sell their disgusting tabloids and to titillate their readers—to make the incident seem salacious and disreputable and to make it look as though it was the woman's fault.
The couple were found naked in bed "without reasonable cause". It seems to me that, if one is going to be in bed, one might as well be naked. Indeed, being naked seems to me to be the most reasonable cause one could have for being in bed if one has someone else with one.
I have described the preposterous language used. The effect of it was that those two people—especially the Wren —have had their lives ruined. That is absolutely disgraceful. They should have had the option of having the court martial heard in camera. I understand why it is necessary at times to hold a court martial in public. Otherwise, all sorts of accusations might be made about behind-closed-doors deliberations and kangaroo courts. I may well be the sort of Member of Parliament who makes such accusations. But we are talking about a case in which two people found themselves charged with an offence which in civilian law would attract no penalty whatever, and in which there was no question of national security being affected. That being so, why could not the couple opt to have the court martial held in camera? That would have spared them the humiliation of undergoing the trial-by-newspaper that we have witnessed in the past few days. I hope that the Minister will contemplate that when we next consider revising matters of discipline within the armed services. If he does not, the incidence of such cases will increase.
I am a fairly naive and trusting sort of chap. I cannot tell whether the Army or the Ministry of Defence deliberately connived at the glare of publicity given to the two service people, on the ground, perhaps, that it had been argued on television and in the newspapers that the wives of serving officers about to embark on ships on which Wrens would be serving were worried about the impact on their menfolk. Those two young people may have been sacrificed to satisfy the partners of serving officers that in any future case exemplary treatment would again be handed out. Perhaps the argument is that, if those young people have their lives destroyed, it is merely a price that they will have to pay and that their case may act as a deterrent. Perhaps I am being over-cynical at this point but that argument was put to me when I argued that the case should have required a degree of understanding, flexibility and feeling from the Ministry of Defence, which should have prevented the two young people from being exposed to the sort of coverage that they got for doing something that we know is very natural. I hope to God that they do not extend such rules to Members of Parliament. If they do, an awful lot of hon. Members are likely to be very embarrassed indeed.
My last point arising from the report concerns homosexuality in the armed forces—a subject to which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North referred. As my hon. Friend said—and it needs to be emphasised time and again—even if a man or a woman is not a practising homosexual, he or she can still be committing an

99
offence. I do not know how the necessary information is obtained. I do not know how someone discovers that someone else is a non-practising homosexual in the armed forces. Perhaps the information is discovered in a letter from a loved one. Are letters read?
Dr. Reid: Perhaps I may assist my hon. Friend. The man or woman in question may not be ashamed of being a homosexual and may tell his or her commanding officer. That is the most simple way.
Mr. Banks: There is no reason why such a person should feel ashamed of being a homosexual. Nevertheless, he or she would be pretty ill-advised to tell a commanding officer unless that commanding officer was similarly disposed. A commanding officer who was told would then be privy to information that he or she might not wish to keep to himself or herself on the ground that, if it emerged at a later date that he or she had been informed by such a person—who might perhaps have stopped being a non-practising homosexual and become a practising homosexual—that officer would be in difficulty. I would strongly urge any practising homosexual member of the armed forces not to go and tell a commanding officer because, apart from anything else, that would put the commanding officer in a very difficult positon.
When homosexuals have been dismissed from the armed forces—something that I utterly deplore—it usually happens without the publicity surrounding the two heterosexuals in the case to which I have referred in detail.
Sexual orientation should not he used as a ground for disbarring people from the armed forces. The Spartans almost made a virtue out of homosexuality; indeed, that was probably one of the qualifications to become a Spartan and "Spartan" is still regarded as a by-word for a fighting force. One is assured that most Spartans were practising homosexuals. The idea was that they were more likely to die fighting for the person whom they loved if that person was standing next to them than if that person were sitting safely at home. Clearly, we can no longer prove the point, but it appears that the fighting ability—perish the thought; I do not like talk about fighting ability—of a gay man or lesbian woman is in no way impaired by his or her sexual orientation.
In the report the Stonewall group makes it quite clear that other NATO countries do not treat homosexuals in their armed forces in the same way as we do. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North made the same point with regard to capital punishment. If other armed forces, whose fighting quality, discipline and so on are at least as good as ours, can do without capital punishment and without criminalising homosexuality, surely we can advance tentatively into the latter part of the 20th century and accept that we can do exactly the same. The report states that the armed forces
"are no more lenient of lesbianism than of homosexuality in men."
That is very strange because lesbianism does not exist as a criminal offence thanks to Queen Victoria who could not possibly believe that two women could get up to such an act. I have news for Queen Victoria: there are a lot of lesbians in this country and, I suspect, a number in the armed forces. It is difficult to accept that there can be a disciplinary service offence that does not exist as a criminal offence in civilian life.
100
At the moment, there is discrimination against gay men and lesbian women in the armed forces. I imagine that they have to put up with an awful lot. I listen to, rather than understand, the arguments advanced by the Government and by MOD officials for not allowing homosexuality in the armed forces. They obviously believe that the heterosexuals in the armed forces would be put at risk. I would have thought that the threat was more the other way; if a barracks was aware that a male soldier was gay, he would be in a very difficult and unpleasant situation. Homosexuals in the armed forces probably need more protection than the discrimination that they endure at the moment.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us what the Government think about those issues. If the Government are not prepared at this stage to act on some of the issues that I have raised, at least we can have some idea whether sympathetic consideration is being given to those points and particularly to ethnic monitoring in the armed forces and to courts martial in camera for certain offences. I cannot believe that at this stage the Government are going to shift their position on homosexuality in view of the degree of homophobia in the House and in the country in general. That is hypocritical and unnecessary, and it has no basis in human rights. It should have no place in the Army or in the other armed forces. I hope that the Minister will consider favourably some of the points that I have put to him tonight.
8.51 pm
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I was particularly anxious to be called in this debate because I had the privilege to be nominated as a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, but unfortunately the Gulf war intervened and I was able to be present at only the first sitting.
At the outset, I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He compared his appointment to the Privy Council to gaining a long service and good conduct medal. By a curious quirk of discrimination, he was not eligible in his military service for that award, but I welcome him to the Privy Council for what must have been some of the most onerous months of service that any Minister of State in peacetime has had to endure in that office.
I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. The spirit in which it conducted its deliberations was entirely what one would expect from the all-party attitude of common sense. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) referred to at least two issues that were not addressed by the Armed Forces Bill and I want to elaborate on some of his arguments.
I want first to consider age limits in different circumstances. I have researched that issue and the question is more complex and interesting than might first appear. Enlistment ages for males become identical for all three services during this year. However, there is a variation in the minimum age to fulfil an operational role, ranging from 16 years six months in the Royal Navy through 16 years 8 months in the Royal Air Force to 17 years in the Army. Historically, the British Army has been an amalgam of two independent elements—the home-based forces for Europe and those engaged in protecting overseas interests. In the modern world, clearly that distinction is much less relevant.

101
The Army has the youngest minimum age for services overseas at 17 years three months, compared with 17 years six months for the RAF and the Royal Navy has no set rules, although there is a handful of trained personnel under the age of 17. I apologise for wearying the House with those statistics, but they are important because they were the limits applied during the Gulf campaign and the ages are related to other factors such as the school leaving age and the length of training programmes.
The matter became one of public concern when a 17-year-old Royal Fusilier was killed in action in tragic circumstances. It was pointed out that had he and the 200 or so other 17-year-olds serving in the Gulf been present in Northern Ireland, they would have been limited to duties within barracks and would not even have been out patrolling the streets—an anomaly if ever there was one.
Interestingly it seems that before 1916 there was no minimum age, although a letter of consent was expected from parents. That did not deter a number of adventure-seeking youngsters and their military employers in the past and I doubt whether I am alone in the House in claiming a grandfather and a great uncle who served throughout the Boer war as teenagers no matter what their stated ages may have been.
In the two world wars, the minimum age was generally 19 although it dropped to eighteen and a half in 1918 and 1944 respectively as the need for extra manpower became acute. Only in 1963 when national service ended did the all-regular Army adopt seventeen and a half as the minimum age.
How is the House supposed to react to paragraph 28 of the Select Committee's recommendations which says:
"there should at least be a presumption that under 18 year olds should not be sent on active service overseas, unless there is some overriding requirement for their particular skills … or unless the threat to national security is such as to necessitate the conscription of minors"?
It is very difficult to endorse that statement given that people are maturing ever younger. Would it not be sensible, practical and more simple to settle on the guideline of 17 years six months for all purposes? That should clearly be a convention rather than a legality, as commanding officers must be left the discretion to take into account, for example, a particular individual's maturity and the very special qualities required for service in Northern Ireland.
It cannot be sensible for a fully trained soldier to be expected to kick his heels for up to a year and be denied the opportunity of putting his skills into practice. I met several 17-year-olds in the Gulf and will never forget a 17-year-old member of a tank crew saying that he had grown up more in the previous three months than at any time in the rest of his life. I suspect that he spoke for all of those of his age when he said how much he would have resented, as a professional soldier, being left behind. He and his comrades were subsequently tested in action. The House will agree that they passed with flying colours.
Although the Select Committee calls for consolidation of the three service Acts—this point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) —the House may consider that a more worthwhile objective would be to standardise firstly recruitment ages for males and females and secondly a common age for operational service worldwide. I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.
102
On the second issue, as someone who would have voted for the Sexual Offences Act 1967 in relation to homosexual acts committed in private between males over the age of 21, I endorse the specific exclusion of legalising such activity in the armed forces and the continuation of homosexuality being considered a service offence. It has always been recognised in the widest possible forum that homosexuality in the special working conditions of the services undermines command and discipline and gives rise to perceptions of favouritism. There is nothing inherently discriminatory about that, as any sexual liaisons—whether homosexual or heterosexual, as referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) —are forbidden within units.
An analysis of the figures over the past four years shows that 335 men left the three services after homosexual incidents. About 85 per cent. of them—the House should consider this point—were dealt with on administrative grounds; in other words, without any formal disciplinary charges being laid. Contrary to public perception—I speak with some experience, having served as a medical officer and having been involved in managing such cases—the figures reflect the enlightened and humane attitude adopted by the authorities. Such cases are always handled sensitively, and commanding officers, physicians and padres, for instance, are routinely consulted.
Furthermore, the point raised about female homosexuality is very different. I doubt very much whether lesbianism should be tolerated in the armed forces merely because it is not a civilian offence. Anyone who reads the figures in the Select Committee's report will see that, in absolute numbers, more females than males were discharged from the Army in the past four years, which clearly represents a disproportionately high number of women in such cases.
I welcome the fact that the Committee was able to consider all aspects of service life and discipline. It is no reflection on the deliberations of members of the Committee that much of their work was done for them, inasmuch as the performance of the armed forces in the Gulf campaign, superimposed on the much-protracted and very delicate role that they had to play day to day in Northern Ireland, indicated that most things in the armed services are done exceedingly well, which makes our armed forces still the most respected throughout the world.
9.1 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) excited the admiration of many of us by the promptness with which he volunteered for active service in the Gulf. The whole House was relieved and glad when he came back unscathed. I wish that I could voice the same admiration for some of his remarks. The country and the House have an obligation to protect young people in the armed forces from themselves. I had the good fortune to visit our forces in the Gulf before the conflict as part of an expedition that was mounted by the Ministry of Defence to allow hon. Members and members of the other place to visit the Gulf.
I was particularly impressed by an 18-year-old in the Royal Engineers. I thought that he was astonishingly mature. He understood, rather surprisingly, quite a lot of the international political elements involved. Indeed, he said to me, "A resolution must be put through the Security Council this week, Sir, because next week the Yemen may

103
have the chair." He clearly understood not only what he was doing day to day but the international political backcloth against which those matters were played out. I happened to remark upon that young man's maturity and good sense to the adjutant of the unit with whom I was having lunch. He said, "You should have seen him before we left Germany. When there was a suggestion that he might not be able to join us, there were tears streaming down his cheeks."
One is lost in admiration for such bravery and commitment. It is a measure of the loyalty that individuals feel to their own regiments or units. However, we have a duty to protect people against such enthusiasm. Any age limit will be arbitrary. A 17-year-and-364-day-old individual may be very much more mature than an 18-year-and-one-day-old individual. The same applies to fixing age limits for people to go into public houses and consume alcoholic liquor. They are essentially arbitrary and will mean that people will qualify who, on a whole series of other criteria, should not. There was considerable apprehension among the public about the notion that 17-year-olds might have to risk or even give their lives, as was plainly demonstrated in the unhappy incident to which reference has already been made.
The Government should give serious consideration to that matter because our armed forces enjoy a great deal of public support, enthusiasm and admiration as a result of their professionalism and commitment in the recent conflict and, in some cases, that public support might be prejudiced or even fractured if it was thought that unnecessary reliance was being placed on individuals of only 17 years or so. This is by no means an easy matter, but I hope that the Government will act on the Select Committee's recommendations.
The Select Committee's recommendation on homosexuality—that the legal position in terms of the committing of a criminal offence should now be the same within the services as in civilian life—is entirely sensible and the Government should pay it serious consideration. Ultimately, that recommendation should find its way into legislative change. As the climate of opinion in the country changes, it is increasingly difficult to maintain that there is something so special, so significant and so different about the armed forces to justify an individual in the services being treated differently from a civilian on a question of criminal law. If that is conceded—and the logic is overwhelming—it is only a short step to the linked conclusion that to cause people to be administratively discharged simply because they acknowledge homosexuality is no longer tenable. Some people outside the House would have wished the Committee to go further, but I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to its significant recommendation.
I might have mentioned many things in this debate, but they have been more than amply covered by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and I do not propose to replicate what he said. However, I would not go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman on the question of the creation of a staff association or some form of representation. It is difficult for me to conceive of the armed forces going down that difficult road.
As with the preceding debate, this debate has shown the House's continuing support for our armed services,
104
together with its proper concern to ensure that discipline is both adequate and relevant to the changed and changing role that they have to play. For that reason, I have no doubt that the continuation order will command the support of the House.
9.8 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I should like to preface my remarks by paying tribute to the work of our armed forces in the Gulf. About this time last year a criminal dictator was planning the invasion of a neighbouring country. That invasion took place on 2 August. He worked on the assumption that he could get away with his criminality and aggression, but the events which occurred afterwards demonstrated that he could not do so. Whatever shortcomings have arisen from the outcome of the war, I am very pleased about what happened. We all have our own views about whether we should have completed the task, and I am aware of the feelings of the large majority of the British people. I believe that, together with our allies, we acted rightly and as we should in a totally justified conflict.
Before the House passes the continuation order, and as part of our consideration of discipline in the armed forces, it is important that we consider the way in which injured soldiers are treated. I have referred in previous debates to the case of one of my constituents, Grenadier guardsman Sean Povey, who lost both legs at the same time as two of his colleagues, John Ray and Adrian Hicks.
Of course, it is right that there should be a code of discipline in the armed forces. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how the armed forces could operate without such a code. I assume that when people enter the armed forces they are notified as soon as possible of the appropriate codes of discipline. That is not in dispute. However, discipline should be accompanied by justice. Members of the armed forces should be able to feel that if in the course of their duties they are seriously injured they will receive compensation.
It is perfectly true that the three Grenadier guardsmen received the best medical treatment. I am sure that all that could be done was done. There was no doubt in my mind at any stage and I am sure that no hon. Member doubts that everything possible was done medically. I am also sure that the guardsmen received the sympathy they deserved. As we have already been notified, there will be a pension arrangement.
One of the injured Grenadier guardsmen has already been discharged. There are two others, one of whom is my constituent Sean Povey. The Minister has confirmed that no blame can be laid on the three guardsmen. He made that clear when I raised the matter a fortnight ago today in an Adjournment debate.
The three young guardsmen were on a training exercise in Canada. As part of the exercise, they were digging a trench and as they dug a buried shell exploded and the tragedy occurred. They lost their legs and suffered other injuries. The Minister will put me right if I have misunderstood the situation, but the Ministry of Defence position is in essence this: that the guardsmen were not responsible for what occurred, but that nor was there neglect on the part of the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, as no one was responsible, no one had liability, so there can be no compensation.

105
Clearly, a legal case of that kind can be built up. I accept that the Ministry of Defence has acted on legal advice, as we have been notified. But the question for the House is simple: is this justice? Is this the way in which a model employer, as the Ministry of Defence should be, should act? We are discussing discipline. As I said earlier, the code of discipline which applies to the armed forces should be accompanied by rules on other factors, including the way in which soldiers are treated. In the circumstances that I have described, I should have thought that it was right to raise the case of my constituent, and I hope that I am in order in so doing.
The Minister said that the case could be pursued through the courts. I accept that. But I ask the House to imagine the mental distress of the three people who have been crippled for life, who—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have let the hon. Gentleman have a good run on this. I fully understand his deep anxiety on behalf of his constituent, but the matter does not arise under this order.
Mr. Winnick: As always, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I must. My point is that we are discussing discipline which, I assume, applies to all aspects of Army life, including what happens when injuries occur. That is all part of the service men's life, and discipline as such cannot simply be seen in isolation. I shall not add much more. Perhaps with your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hopefully keeping myself in order, I can finish what I intended to say.
The three guardsmen now have the added mental distress of not knowing what any outcome in the courts would he. If the case is to be pursued, how can anyone know what will happen in the courts? It is extremely unfair that, in addition to the serious injuries that they will suffer from for life, they do not know whether their case will succeed in court.
I hope that this is related to discipline, but is the Minister willing to place in the Library a full copy of the board of inquiry report on the tragedy as I have seen only a brief summary?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I well understand the hon. Members deep concern for his constituent, but these matters do not arise under the scope of the debate provided for by this order.
Mr. Winnick: I shall conclude my remarks; and it is only right and proper that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should keep us in order if we stray from the subject.
I put it to the Minister that the case will continue to receive attention from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The fact that more than 200 hon. Members have signed motions on the subject and the fact that the Leader of the House said during business questions that he has discussed the case with the Secretary of State for Defence, who recognises the deep feeling shared by hon. Members, demonstrate that the matter will not go away.
As on Thursday, I plead with the Minister, because I know that he is aware of the questions put by myself and other hon. Members, to show some understanding, sympathy and compassion towards the three soldiers and to ensure that, having suffered such terrible injuries, they receive the compensation and justice to which they are entitled.
9.16 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: May I apologise to those on the Front Benches and to the House for missing the opening speeches of the debate? I had an unavoidable meeting elsewhere in the House and the previous debate ended a bit sooner than was expected.
I want to use the debate on the renewal of the disciplinary order to discuss the issue of homosexuality in the armed forces. I shall return to that shortly.
I also wish to raise the question of racial harassment, bullying and discrimination in the forces. Clearly, they should be disciplinary offences. I know that they are al the moment, but under current procedures the bullies are not being caught and records of such offences are not being kept, so the problem is not properly being taken into account.
This point was made by the Select Committe on Defence in a recent report. It said:
"It might therefore be better to record all incidents of bullying or assault where the victim was from a racial minority; … it would show whether members of racial minorities are bullied disproportionately to their numbers and would allow comparison over time."
The Committee recommended that
"MoD consider how best to identify incidents of racial harassment in the Armed Forces and keep records accordingly."
The Committee also considered racial harassment and discrimination against ethnic minorities in their employment. It said how difficult it was to
"demonstrate that there is equality of opportunity".
Therefore, the Committee recommended that
"MoD reconsider its opposition to the ethnic monitoring of Service personnel."
I ask that that should be done.
I shall not refer to the Gulf war—that has been done in other debates—but one aspect of it was that the head of the United States' armed forces, General Colin Powell, was a black service man. If he had been a member of the British armed forces, it would have been surprising if he had risen above the rank of sergeant. There is a strong suspicion that discrimination goes on in the armed forces and that the Ministry of Defence has been lax in not sorting out the problem long before now by, as the Select Committee said, keeping proper records. Otherwise the racists get away with it without being properly disciplined. That leads to the suspicion that the Ministry of Defence does not care when it comes to interpreting that part of the disciplinary order.
Earlier this year I asked a number of parliamentary questions about homosexuality in the armed forces. The answers I received revealed that, last year, 76 lesbian and gay members of the armed forces were dismissed as a result of their homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. That is the largest number of dismissals since 1987 and reversed the trend of the past two years when fewer numbers had been dismissed.
Of that 76, 40 were dismissed from the Army, 11 from the Navy and 25 from the Royal Air Force. Six of the 76 were dismissed with disgrace following court martial. All were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 90 days to 18 months. I remind the House that they were sentenced for behaviour that is not criminal in civilian life. Those cases meant that, for the first time, lesbian behaviour was criminalised.
Mr. Tony Banks: It never has been a criminal act.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right, but it has been criminalised by the disciplinary orders. That is wrong.
Homosexuality among members of the armed forces should be decriminalised. The Select Committee on Defence made that recommendation when it said:
"We recommend that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under Service law. We look to the Government to propose an appropriate amendment to the law before the end of the next Session of Parliament."
I hope that the Minister can tell us that will be the case.
The same standards and regulations should apply equally for heterosexual and homosexual members of the armed forces. That point was made by Stonewall in its submission to the Select Committee. It argued that MOD current policy is severely flawed because it exposes service personnel to the risk of blackmail and therefore endangers national security. That is the converse of the argument that MOD still uses. It is less likely that members of the armed forces would be blackmailed if homosexuality were out in the open.
Stonewall also said that the current attitude results in the loss of good service men and women, which wastes the money spent on them and disrupts military efficiency. It also said that that attitude makes it much more difficult to ensure that effective AIDS prevention education is given to gay members of the forces. I have made a similar point in previous debates on disciplinary orders.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), who served in the Gulf, said that if one allowed homosexuality in the forces one would get favouritism. I do not believe that that would happen on a large scale. Any favouritism would occur in a minority of cases only and it could be dealt with by effective management systems, which should already be in existence, when promotions are made. If sexual relationships equal favouritism in the workplace, such relationships should be outlawed for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I do not see hon. Members rushing to do that, especially those who speedily employ their wives as secretaries or in some other post that is covered by their office costs allowance. Hon. Members are probably the worst abusers when it comes to favouritism. The numbers involved would not be great and proper management systems should be able to cope properly with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the case reported last week of the naval lieutenant and sub-lieutenant who were found in a bunk at sea. I do not want to go into the details of the case, but I want to discuss the sentence. Both admitted to charges under the Naval Discipline Act 1957 and each was fined £750 and severely reprimanded. Compare that with the treatment of all those who were thrown out of the services in disgrace and imprisoned for their homosexual behaviour. Yet this couple were fined £750 each.
Mr. Tony Banks: That may have been the penalty imposed by the courts martial, but does my hon. Friend agree that the penalty that those two young people have subsequently paid is far greater than the mere monetary fines of £750? They have become notorious in the popular press and their employment prospects are limited—indeed, severely damaged. They have paid a double penalty. Double jeopardy is not something of which any hon. Member would approve.
Mr. Cohen: I accept that both officers have been disgraced and humiliated, and so paid that extra price. That is presumably why the fine of £750 is so light—actually, it is heavy. It is light relative to the price that homosexuals pay. Homosexuals are thrown into prison and humiliated, and their prospects, too, are severely damaged. As the answers to my questions show, their penalty is far worse than that in this instance. I am not arguing for increasing sentences for this couple or other couples found in the same position. Far from it, I should like to see lighter sentences in such circumstances. Most important, the same sentences should apply to those of homosexual orientation who are found in similar circumstances.
During the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill the Home Office Minister was keen to impress on the House through press releases and in statements that there should be equality of sentences for heterosexuals and homosexuals. He said that that was Government policy. It may be Home Office policy, but clearly it has not filtered through to the Ministry of Defence. When the Minister replies, will he say whether that is the Government's policy across the board or whether the Ministry of Defence is a law unto itself and that that policy does not have to apply to it? The answer will show whether the Ministry of Defence is backward in that respect—indeed, one of the most backward Defence Ministries in the whole of Europe.
I agree with Stonewall. Homosexuality in the forces should be decriminalised. It should not be a disciplinary offence. It should not be an offence for military personnel, if it takes place off duty and outside service premises, naturally providing that it is with consent. In no circumstances should it be an offence.
It is also argued that the Ministry of Defence should set up an independent review to examine military regulations on homosexuality in the armed forces and to draw on the experience and policies of our NATO allies. Nearly half our NATO allies permit lesbian and gay membership of their armed forces. The Ministry of Defence is behind the rest of Europe, and is dragging its feet.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of discipline, does he have any thoughts about trade union representation in the armed forces? The Select Committee report covers the subject of homosexuality in the armed forces. I have raised the matter on several occasions, so it is nice to have a wider spread of support.
Mr. Cohen: I have spoken in debates on discipline orders about trade unionism in the forces. I support the right of members of the armed forces to belong to a trade union. That is their fundamental right. It is a human right—everyone should be allowed to join a trade union.
I do not wish to deal further with that point. My hon. Friend implied that he supports that view. I hope that in the future we will be able to persuade a Labour Government to allow members of the forces that right. That would counter the arguments about favouritism. I believe that the extent of favouritism is negligible, but trade union representation would counter that. I doubt that the Government will allow trade unionism in the forces, because they are totally opposed to it in civilian life.
I urge the Government to act on racial abuse and to ensure equality between members of the armed forces, whatever their sexual orientation. If they do not, I hope

109
that we will soon have a Labour Government who are prepared to consider these matters and make sensible changes. It would not cost money, but it would enhance basic freedoms and human rights.
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend said that it was unlikely that the Government would show much enthusiasm for trade unionism in the armed forces, in view of the attitude that they have adopted for civvy street. Does he agree that what happened at GCHQ demonstrates that in no circumstances would the Government allow military personnel to belong to a trade union, unlike some of our allies who accept and encourage trade unionism?
Mr. Cohen: One of the abiding scandals of the Government is that they abolished trade union rights at GCHQ. I was one of the rebels; I broke with discipline on the first vote on that matter. I voted against the Government when my party thought it tactically best to abstain. I thought that that was a mistake. The Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), is listening. I assure him that I am not in the habit of breaking with discipline, but it showed my feelings about the Government's outrageous behaviour in regard to GCHQ.
Mr. Winnick: An association of the type that we have been discussing would probably be able to pursue claims made when soldiers were seriously injured. Individual soldiers, such as my constituent Sean Povey, would not find themselves without an association to speak for them. I hope that such an association will eventually be formed to assist those in the armed forces.
Mr. Cohen?: Indeed. A trade union is needed to represent individual soldiers who are treated particularly badly—and there are plenty of them. Those who feel that they have been discriminated against on racial grounds —they may even have been physically abused—cannot secure justice under the present system. But it is not only those who are currently serving in the armed forces who cannot obtain decent treatment from the Ministry of Defence. We need only think of the nuclear test veterans who, in the course of their duties, were exposed to nuclear fall-out. The fact that they cannot obtain proper compensation is another of the abiding scandals that should be hung around the necks of defence Ministers.
Mr. Tony Banks: Paragraph 43 of the Select Committee report clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Government and, in particular, the Ministry of Defence. The Committee said that it considered the present position unsatisfactorily vague. The implication is that certain activities will not preclude someone from membership of the armed forces, and that each case will be considered in terms of the existing circumstances. We all know what that means: anyone who was ill advised enough to make an open secret of his trade union involvement—the same might apply to homosexuality—would put himself in grave danger of total discrimination.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made his point very well. I am reminded of all the struggles that trade unionists have had to undergo just to be recognised. Employers hammer such people as soon as they place themselves on the line by demanding a right of association in their own
110
best interests—or even for their own defence. The Ministry of Defence is now probably the worst employer when it comes to failing to recognise trade unions.
The problem has even been recognised in the United States. I watched a television programme called "The A-Team" over the weekend. "Hannibal" and his colleagues were fighting for the right of a few workers on the land to form a trade union; their employer was determined to crush them and treat them like slave labour. The United States culture now accepts that union membership is legitimate, and a proper way for workers to defend themselves.
Mr. Cryer: Would it not have been helpful for the nuclear test veterans to have been given trade union representation? Might that have not persuaded the Government to adopt a sympathetic point of view in relation to people who have given, and are giving, their lives for their country? The Government actually arranged for a Back Bencher to talk out the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), in a deliberate, organised effort to stop any initiative from being launched in the House to help people who are suffering a cruel fate.
Mr. Cohen: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's record on nuclear test veterans is squalid. I have been in the House when Tory Members have been getting a bad press, such as during the Gulf war and on other occasions, and they have demanded that the BBC and ITV show programmes that put them in a better light. I do not ask the BBC or ITV to put the Labour party in a better light but they have a duty to record properly what has happened in the House in relation to nuclear test veterans. Tory Members' efforts to block compensation for ex-service men and their families should be the subject of television and radio programmes. The Government should be brought to public account for their squalid behaviour and the way in which they have treated those who have suffered because of service to their country.
I have spoken for longer than I intended but I have made the two points that I wished to make on racial harassment and, specifically, homosexuality in the armed forces. I endorse what the Select Committee had to say and hope that there will be a change of policy on those issues in due course.
9.41 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish to make three points on the many and varied aspects of the order, which is simple and straightforward.
First, the Ministry of Defence allowed or caused—it is not clear which—medical supplies to be wasted at the conclusion of the Gulf hostilities. A voluntary reservist, who was carrying out a public service and was not subject to the disciplinary procedures of full-time service men and women in the Gulf, gave me the information. Despite the excuse of the Ministry of Defence that the shelf life of those supplies had expired, my information was that that was not true, and that the medical supplies that were wasted and poured away by the ton could have been used on our casualties, had they occurred. Mercifully, they did not.
Although the Secretary of State wrote back to me saying that the problem was caused by the shelf life, tons of material was simply poured away by men and women in

111
the armed forces who did not go out to the Gulf for that purpose but for the best of motives. As the House knows, I was among those who disagreed with them and opposed the precipitate move to war in the Gulf. However, that reservist volunteered to assist and was appalled at the waste of resources, especially when everyone knew of the deprivation and desperation and the fact that thousands of people were starved, injured, wounded and suffering the outrages of war.
The medical supplies could have been used, but were deliberately destroyed in an outrageous act of wanton vandalism for which no one has yet been brought to book. Even if the shelf life of the medical supplies had expired, there was no need to dismantle tons of medical supplies, count them all and then repack them to send them back to the United Kingdom. That was simply to occupy the troops once the hostilities had ceased. Such is the mind-boggling mindlessness that occurs in the armed forces to keep men and women needlessly occupied.
Secondly, I usually raise in an annual debate the right of trade union membership. The Government are torn between whether to halt the headlong rush to federalism in the European Community, led by Jacques Delors, or to go along with it, saying that we should get the best out of it. We have heard those arguments and platitudes year after year as the Government have succumbed to every Common Market demand. The Single European Act, our capitulation to the exchange rate mechanism and other moves have occurred against the background of the Government's accepting the policies. It is against that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the relevance of that to our debate?
Mr. Cryer: I was just about to embark on the very sentence. The relevance is that at least one Common Market country fully accepts trade union rights for its armed forces, and other Common Market countries have varying degrees of staff representation and trade union rights, albeit restricted ones. Some countries have trade union rights for their armed forces but withhold the right of service personnel to strike.
I am in favour of trade union representation in the armed forces for a variety of reasons, some of which have been mentioned. One reason is the disgraceful way in which nuclear test veterans have been treated by this Government. If the Government say that we must be prepared for 1992 and we must get in at the middle of "Europe"—although they really mean only a section of Europe in the middle of the economic Community—they may find themselves with things around their neck of which they are not in favour, such as a degree of trade union rights for members of the armed forces.
I support trade union rights, but I think that we can have them irrespective of our membership of the EEC—it is that for which we should be battling.
Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are to resist—as they obviously will—any such association in the Army, they will have to demonstrate that they will treat soldiers in a proper and fit manner? That is particularly true of soldiers who, in the course of their training, are seriously injured, such as the three Grenadier guradsmen who were well treated medically and in terms of pension rights, but have not been
112
paid one penny in compensation. We should compare their position to that of civilians. A worker in the channel tunnel lost both his legs in July 1989 and was awarded damages in the High Court of more than £370,000. However, my constituent, one of the three Grenadier guardsmen, will not receive—unless the Government relent—one single penny compensation.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a graphic and telling point.
I shall dwell for a few minutes on nuclear test veterans. Such people willingly served their country and participated in unusual and, for this country, unique tests, without adequate protection. They received damaging doses of radiation, but the Government have simply turned their back on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) introduced a private Member's Bill when he was lucky enough to come in the first 10 in the ballot. His Bill was framed around similar legislation in the United States, where the Government have not turned their back on American nuclear test veterans and have introduced a system of compensation. The British Government deliberately blocked my hon. Friend's Bill and connived to stop legislation for people who are fatally injured and have given their lives for this country. Those people did not make a conscious decision to do so at the time because they were not given the proper information. They were not given adequate protection and were exposed to danger.
In ordinary, civilian terms, those veterans suffered because of negligence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. The accident in which they were involved could reasonably have been foreseen given the state of scientific knowledge at the time. However, the information was not revealed to the troops and that act of negligence should lie at the door of the Government, who should acknowledge it.
My next point relates to discipline and the position of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel with regard to nuclear weapons. I believe that it is the perfect right of any member of the armed forces to refuse to take part in the deployment and use of nuclear weapons. They have a right of conscience so to refuse without any disciplinary consequences. We forget that nuclear weapons would involve the environmental destruction of our planet and of humanity on a scale that we have never experienced before. The Minister may say, "In certain circumstances, we must be able to use nuclear weapons. That threat is the whole purpose behind nuclear weapons. If we use them we have failed, but we must have the right to use them." I do not accept that people have that right. I deny the right of any Front Bench, on either side of the House, to invoke mass extermination as a means of conducting international affairs.
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Rubbish.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) says that I am talking a load of rubbish, but nuclear weapons involve the threat of mass extermination. One hundred and forty one nations have said, "We will have no nuclear weapons." The Ministry knows that we are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, and if the Government are really serious about a peaceful future and about preserving the planet, they must obey that treaty.
The Government were keen enough to support the United Nations when that suited their book, over the Gulf

113
—so they should support also the non-proliferation treaty. They must honour and abide by the two review conferences, which declared that nuclear nations such as the United Kingdom must renounce the deployment and potential use of nuclear weapons.
To do so would not be to leave ourselves naked and defenceless. It would be to agree with the majority of the nations of the earth, which, thank goodness, do not follow this nation in manufacturing and deploying nuclear weapons. If they do, our planet and humanity will be doomed—and I deny that path for this nation or any other.
I welcome the non-nuclear commitment made by 141 nations. Our armed forces should have the right to say, "No, we will not participate in the extermination of mankind and womankind." The disciplinary Act should therefore reflect that serious and important qualification on every single occasion.
9.51 pm
Dr. Reid: With the leave of the House, I will comment only briefly to give the Minister some time in which to respond.
This has been a good debate. Apart from anything else, it has gone beyond the formalities and mechanics of discipline and into a large number of areas and even into common sense. Very often, we do not see the wood for the trees. There is great merit in having, not a technical debate, but one with some common sense. I am reminded of the cavalryman who was upbraided by his senior officer because he was wearing only one spur. When asked why, he gave what I think was an excellent answer—that he reckoned that if he got one side of the horse moving, the other side would probably follow. So, although he was in breach of regulations, he probably had more common sense than some of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) had a good run around the houses. He made only two mistakes. The first was to remind us publicly that he had broken party discipline on a number of occasions, and the second was to admit to watching "The A-Team"—neither of which bodes very well for his future, if we get into government.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) returned to the question that occupied us a great deal tonight—that of homosexuality. I will not add to my earlier remarks, except to comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West called the "dashing lieutenant" and the "randy Wren". That incident strengthens to some extent the Government's case, because they can claim with some consistency, "It is not just homosexuals we are thinking of but heterosexuals—and where there is any physical contact or favouritism, they must suffer the full weight of discipline as well."
In other ways, the Government's cause is weakened. If the same law is applied, every heterosexual who is capable of ending up in the same position as the "dashing lieutenant" and the "randy Wren"—even if not practising —would find themselves dismissed from the service, whereas mere homosexuality, let alone homosexual activity, is an offence.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) spoke from considerable experience. I was
114
interested in what he said about under-18-year-olds. The hon. Gentleman said that he was told by a 17-year-old that a few weeks in a tank in the Gulf had enabled him to grow up more than during the previous part of his life. I am 44, and if someone had stuck me in a tank in the Gulf I would probably have grown up more in those few weeks than in the previous part of my life. Such experience is no rationale for allowing under-18-year-olds to go into battle.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that there should be consistency between the services, but there must also be consistency about the age at which people are allowed to go on active service overseas in defence of their country and the age at which they are entitled to participate in other adult activities such as voting or going into a public house. The inconsistency about that worries the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) showed considerable ingenuity in his speech and in two interventions by raising a case which could have been out of order in the debate. We share his deep regret at the accident to his constituent and fully understand why he is pursuing the issue of compensation.
Some hon. Members spoke about racial discrimination and ethnic minorities. No doubt they are aware of the two useful recommendations in the Select Committee report.
I thank the members of the Committee for their assistance to me and to my colleagues. I thank the Committee Clerks and the MOD witnesses who were subjected to what has been called robust questioning. They showed the sort of stoicism that is displayed by service men and women. Finally, and most importantly, we thank the service men and women on whose behalf we have been holding these discussions. I reiterate that, although we are debating breaches of discipline, penalties and punishment, they arise only in the minority of cases because the vast majority of British service men and women operate to a standard of discipline that is a credit to them all, their own self-discipline. For that we thank them.
9.56 pm
Mr. Archie Hamilton: This has been a wide-ranging debate and many of its topics have been raised before in armed forces debates. Some of them are old chestnuts.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) spoke about ethnic monitoring. We have taken the view that in-service monitoring could be divisive in a close-knit community such as the armed forces. While we continue to have reservations about the applicability of monitoring to the armed forces, the Select Committee has asked us to reconsider our opposition and we are looking at the practice of other employers.
Monitoring of entrants to the services shows a low percentage of people from ethnic minorities. We reckon that ethnic minorities form 5·7 per cent. of the 15 to 24-year-old age group from which we hope to recruit. Applicants from ethnic minorities form about 1·6 per cent. and entrants are about 1·1 per cent. By any national comparison the percentages are far too low and we are not happy about that.
I do not know what can be achieved by some sort of monitoring of people who are in the services. Should it be done voluntarily, in which case members of the ethnic minorities in the armed forces might decide not to fill in the form? I do not think that we should force them to do so. Alternatively, perhaps senior officers could submit a return

115
showing the ethnic origins of people in their units. It is not easy to see how that could be done, and I suspect that if it were it would show the same percentages as those that can be produced from an examination of entry forms.
It is much more important to address the problem by improving recruitment in areas where there are concentrations of ethnic minorities. That can be done by advertising and by other means to increase the numbers of people who are joining the services.
Mr. Tony Banks: There is no need for the Minister to reinvent the wheel. If he wants to know how to increase the number of ethnic minority recruits and, more important, how to retain them, he should talk to the Metropolitan police, who have experienced these problems. It is not good enough for him to say that he is dissatisfied with the low level of recruitment from the ethnic minorities. Has he ever asked the reason why? It is that they are put off by the stories and the knowledge of the racial harassment and discrimination in the armed services. That is not my prejudice but the experience of black people.
Mr. Hamilton: That is the hon. Gentleman's story. I do not know, and we make inquiries about, why such people do not join more readily. The answer is not as simple as he suggests.
Several hon. Members have referred to the deaths of two young service men in the Gulf conflict—a matter of great regret and sadness. I assure the House that we shall consider carefully whether service men under 18 should be sent on active service overseas, and we shall report our conclusions to the House in due course.
We have always taken as our criterion whether service men are well trained. If we feel that they have reached their peak of efficiency in doing their job, we feel that we can send them off and ask them to fight. I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is no longer present. He made the point that any age limit is arbitrary. As to maturity, some of us take longer to come to maturity than others. It is not necessarily age related. We have also to take into account that if younger trained service men are removed from a unit, the ability of that unit to fight is reduced. However, we shall look at the matter to see whether we can do anything.
The issue of homosexuality was raised, as it invariably is, by Labour Members. Only they could seriously suggest that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the armed forces. It is extraordinary that they believe that that would work. It is a long-standing policy that both homosexual activity and orientation are incompatible with service in the armed forces. The main reason centres on the need to maintain discipline and morale. The services are hierarchical, close knit, overwhelmingly single sex and young communities. Units can work to full effectiveness only on the basis of mutual trust and the expectation of equal treatment among each rank. The formation within these units of sexually motivated relationships are potentially very disruptive of discipline and morale, particularly when they cross rank boundaries.
It is worth making the point that very young service men must have the permission of their parents to join. I believe that such permission would be less forthcoming if parents thought that there was any risk that senior ranks of homosexual non-commissioned officers, and indeed
116
commissioned officers, might use the advantage of their rank to coerce young service men into activities in which they would not otherwise want to take part.
Our practice is that the majority of service personnel who are required to leave the services on grounds of their homosexuality are administratively discharged—a point brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). Therefore, there is no question of such people having a criminal record on account of their homosexuality. Prosecution under the service discipline Acts occurs only in a minority of cases and will always be considered where there are grounds for believing that a civil offence has been committed. On conviction, dismissal from the service will almost certainly follow.
We will carefully consider the Select Committee's recommendation that homosexuality, which is no longer an offence under civil law, should not constitute an offence under service law. I should make it clear that there is no specific service offence of committing a homosexual act or of being a homosexual, but a homosexual act that would not be an offence under civil law may be used as the basis for a prosecution for certain offences unique to service law, including conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, and disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind. I can give no undertaking on timing; it is a complex area of law. The recommendation would put homosexuals in a more advantageous position than heterosexuals and lesbians. I do not want to make changes that affect the public perception of our position on homosexuality on which there must be no doubt.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North also raised the question of the composition of courts martial. He suggested that it might be better if courts martial contained one non-commissioned officer or similar person because he thought that in some way better justice would be served. Courts martial and civil courts are not directly comparable. Unlike civil courts operating with juries, courts martial are essentially disciplinary courts which consider matters of fact and of law, and which decide both finding and sentence. Although only about 20 per cent. of the members of courts martial rise from the ranks, they know their men far better than their equivalents did 30 or 40 years ago. The conditions in which they operate, such as in Northern Ireland or on board ship, ensure that junior officers especially are as in touch with their men as are senior non-commissioned officers.
No call for the idea has come from members of the forces. The most recent major study in the forces, which was carried out in 1985, concluded that it would not improve the quality of justice and would not give the appearance of its being improved. A court martial may consider service offences such as flying offences in which the qualifications and service knowledge of the court would be essential in deciding the facts of a particular case. It is right that the judicial role should remain with those who are ultimately responsible for discipline. I have no anecdotal evidence, but I know that in the United States other ranks have the right to have one of their own on a court martial. Only 1 per cent. of them exercise that right.
The Labour party, as one has come to expect in these debates, raised the question of trade unions. We take the view that the active involvement of trade unions or professional associations could run counter to the principle that service personnel should not engage in any activity that might conflict with their service duties. In the

117
past, we have resisted a precise definition of an unacceptable trade union activity, mainly because the criteria drawn up would inevitably be more restrictive than those presently allowed. However, we will study carefully the recommendation of the Select Committee that appropriate regulations are codified. We will consider whether we can provide more detailed guidelines.
We believe that we already have an efficient and well understood communications system with all members of the armed forces through the chain of command. That is further supplemented by regular attitude surveys with those remaining in and those leaving the services. In addition, teams from each service visit a number of units each year to answer questions and to listen to the concerns of regular service men at first hand. The question of greater representation by trade union or staff federation is never a significant factor in the investigations. I therefore endorse the Select Committee's view that no other form of representation is required.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East—
Mr. Tony Banks: North-West.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman raised the question of racial harassment. The Select Committee accepts that compiling statistics on bullying would be subject to difficulties. However, we will give careful thought to the recommendation that we consider how best to identify and record incidents of racial harassment in the armed forces. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East—
Mr. Banks rose—
Mr. Hamilton: I am not giving way.
Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is foolish not to give way. I realise that in his speech which someone has written for him it probably says that I am the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, but I happen to be the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. That is all I wanted to say. Get on with your speech, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: The point of order was for me.
Mr. Banks: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I did not want the Minister to take time out to get a drink because he did not deserve such a break.
Mr. Hamilton: I apologise to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I am grateful to him for putting me right. I am also terribly grateful to him for asking me to the Theatre Royal, Stratford to see the play about the maltreatment of blacks in the armed forces.
The hon. Gentleman raised a difficult problem. We hear of people who have left the armed forces and say that they were discriminated against during their time in the forces. It would be much more useful if they complained at the time. If they did, such allegations would be investigated by senior officers, and there is no doubt that any form of bullying or racial discrimination or harassment would be seriously investigated and dealt with. We cannot do anything if black service men leave the services and then say that they were discriminated against, because at that stage it is impossible to obtain evidence of what has gone on. If people want to help, I can only encourage them to bring the matter to our attention earlier. If there isevidence—and I do not know whether there is
118
evidence—and I do not know whether there is—of racial harassment in the services, we can deal with it only if complaints are raised at the time, rather than later.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the publicity involving the Royal Naval officer and the Wren in a recent case which came before a court martial. Having said that, I do not think that there is any reason to change the no-touching rule. It is absolutely right to have such restrictions on board ship. If we do not, we shall have serious difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman asked about holding the case in camera. Either side can apply for a case to be held in camera on the grounds that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. I am afraid that I cannot comment further on that case.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to a matter that he has been raising for some time —the case of the three guardsmen who had their legs blown off and were badly injured while digging a trench in Canada. The hon. Gentleman goes on endlessly about the fact that they receive no compensation but ignores the fact that they are being quite well looked after under the arrangements that we have—the pension from the armed services and the DSS war pension. Former Guardsman Hicks also receives the mobility supplement and clothing allowance, although that does not apply to the other two guardsmen as they are still in the Army and will not be discharged until as much as possible has been done for them in medical terms.
I think that I am right in saying—within a few pounds —that the total amount that Guardsman Hicks receives is £8,984 a year. That sum is tax free and index linked, and the equivalent lump sum would be about £200,000. That is a significant amount.
The guardsmen have made very good recoveries indeed —especially Hicks, who is looking for a job at the moment. I think that he has applied for unemployment benefit in the mean time and I sincerely hope that he will get a job. He is not debarred from sedentary jobs such as those that many of us have and he could receive serious earnings on top of that money—already the best part of £9,000 a year, tax free and index linked, for the rest of his life.
Mr. Winnick: I am not the only hon. Member who has raised the case. The Minister will know that a number of his hon. Friends are doing so—rightly in my view. Is the Minister aware that the three guardsmen themselves are not satisfied? It is all very well for him to mention the sum in question, which is not in dispute, but the guardsmen do not feel that justice has been done. If they did, they would not have contacted hon. Members. Moreover, they would not be in contact with their solicitors and would not now be considering taking the case to court. The three young men—Sean Povey is only 21—have lost their legs and suffered other injuries and they feel that they are entitled to compensation in addition to the pension. Like other hon. Members—more than 200 on both sides of the House have signed the motion—I believe that they are absolutely right to press their case.
Mr. Hamilton: It would be a funny old world if we paid compensation—large lump sums of taxpayers' money—to people just because they were not satisfied with the pension arrangements made for them.
Mr. Winnick: Having lost both legs?
Mr. Hamilton: We have to assess whether £9,000 a year, tax free and index linked, is a reasonable settlement—it will never be that generous—in the light of the injuries that those young men suffered, and taking into account the fact that they are more than able to get a job giving them earnings in addition to that money.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North had the cheek to suggest that the Ministry of Defence was a complete shambles and that we might end up with a smaller budget and no defence strategy whatever. Coming from the Labour party, that is pretty cool. If anyone can tell me what Labour party policy is on anything or how much Labour's defence budget would be if there were ever a Labour Government, that person is much cleverer than I. Labour Members have given no information about their defence policy. They are lying very low. Before they start hurling stuff at us, they should reveal what Labour's policy is likely to be.
Question put and agreed.
Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND)
  That the Erskine Bridge Tolls Extension Order 1991, dated 12th May 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  COMPANIES
  That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991 No. 1206), dated 20th May 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.— [Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  AGRICULTURE
  That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1991, dated 2nd May 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.).
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  DATA PROTECTION
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8460/90 on protection of personal data; and considers that any Community legislation should so far as possible be based on the approach set out in the 1981 Council of Europe Convention on data protection.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.

Empty Properties (Liverpool)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. David Davis.]
10.15 pm
Mr. David Alton: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of empty property in Liverpool. At the outset, I want to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who will reply to the debate, and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) who introduced a Bill about empty houses last year. He hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, to raise some points in addition to those that I will make. I am also grateful for the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) who has raised the issue of empty properties in Merseyside and the Liverpool area on a previous occasion.
I want to begin by putting the debate in context. At present, throughout the United Kingdom there are about 700,000 empty properties, of which 586,000 are in the private sector, 92,000 are owned by local authorities, 19,000 are owned by housing associations and 30,000 by the Government. In the north-west region, 74,657 private properties are standing empty; 24,563 are owned by local authorities, 2,560 are owned by housing associations and 2,571 by the Government.
I want now to contrast the position in Liverpool with that in other cities. In Newcastle, there are 6,790 empty properties. In Manchester, there are 10,760. In Birmingham there are 10,900 and in Sheffield 8,810. Regrettably, this is another of those league tables of which Liverpool is top. According to Mr. Peter Bounds, who is the chief executive of Liverpool city council, at the moment there are 5,733 local authority properties standing vacant in the city of Liverpool. The council admits that some of those have been empty for as long as four years.
In addition, 7,000 properties in the private sector are vacant, and 931 are owned by housing associations. Liverpool city council confirms that if tenants had been living in properties which it owns and which are vacant at present, about £4·5 million of rent would have been collected in the past 12 months alone. That might have helped to offset the £70·99 double poll tax that Liverpool community charge payers are now being forced to pay in lieu of uncollected poll tax. It might also have been a modest contribution to the staggering £800 million city debt which currently burdens the ratepayers of Liverpool.
Massive interest charges, which must be met by Liverpool people, may benefit Swiss and Japanese moneylenders, but they cripple the local administration so much that it has no resources to run local services or to maintain, manage or let properties efficiently. The result is that properties stand empty. They are unrepaired and increasingly vandalised. That, in turn, makes them even more difficult to let.
Trapped in that vicious circle, what has Liverpool done? It has resorted to the unimaginative and costly remedy of demolition. In the past 10 years, Liverpool's Labour council has demolished 12,000 properties. The outstanding debt on the properties that have been demolished is still £23·9 million. That is money still to be paid on properties that have now been pulled down. In the past five years, 6,878 properties have been pulled down in Liverpool—properties that were standing empty. The outstanding debt on those properties is £13·5 million.

121
Last year alone, 694 properties were demolished at a cost of £376,000 and with outstanding debts of £1·25 million left as a continuing burden to the community charge payers of Liverpool. The council intended to demolish a further 3,500 properties with outstanding debt charges of £8 million. Although the number of properties to be demolished is likely to be reduced to about 1,000, it is an unimaginative, costly and scorched earth approach to the problem.
When I was first elected to Liverpool city council in 1972, the council decided to build an estate called Netherly. Within 12 years, that estate has been so badly neglected, so badly maintained and managed that, with 48 years of debt charges still outstanding, the council had to pull down many of those dwellings—dwellings that had been standing vacant for the previous four or five years.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is the Minister in the Department of the Environment, knows of a case in my constituency because I have raised it specifically with him. In the St. Andrew's Gardens complex, which is also known as the Bullring, several hundred properties are currently vacant. From the discussion that I held last Friday with housing corporation officials in Liverpool, I know that there is a welcome new Housing Corporation initiative aimed at the Bullring which will involve volume builders, housing associations and the local authority. I hope that Ministers will give it a positive response. Otherwise, the properties will continue to stand empty and blight this area, which is in the very heart of the city, for many more years to come.
When Archihishop Derek Worlock recently carried out a pastoral visitation to that community, he expressed grave disquiet at the appalling conditions in which he found his cathedral parish now living. He has registered his fervent wish that the remaining community be kept together and a housing initiative be taken as a matter of urgency.
One example from that Bullring area, which I have already drawn to the attention of Ministers, is a graphic illustration of the scale and nature of the problem. A gentleman called Michael Stetch lives in a property in Gill street. It is in a corporation complex which, within the past 10 years, has had more than £30,000 spent on improving and modernising it. Within five years, Mr. Stetch decided to take up the right to buy under the Government's right-to-buy legislation and purchased one of the flats. Within another two years the city council decided not to fill any vacancies that occurred in blocks because it decided to demolish them. These are properties on which £300,000 of public money has been spent. The property that is owned by Mr. Stetch, which was bought by that tenant under the right to buy, has now been put in a demolition programme. All the other properties in his block are not being relet and have been left vacant. Now his home is to be compulsorily acquired by the Department of the Environment and demolished. That is the economics of the mad house. I hope that the Government will look at that staggering waste of public money.
There is waste in the private sector, too. The Government must treat the issue comprehensively. In Liverpool, in addition to the 5,500 empty council properties, there are 7,000 empty properties in the private sector. Recently, I wrote to a company in Birmingham, J. Saville Gordon Group plc, concerning a property at 122 Salisbury road, Wavertree. The property had been empty for several years. Its owners, a very large property agency, admitted to me in its reply that it had forgotten that it
122
owned the property, and said that it was grateful to me for drawing the matter to its attention. In fairness, it then said that it would put in hand the rehabilitation and renovation of the property. Although I am grateful for the agency's candour, one must still be critical of the fact that a large property company could so easily forget that it even owns such a property as part of its portfolio. Criticism also stems from the detrimental effects of its empty dwelling on the nearby community.
Every empty property represents a curse on the community. Empty homes become derelict homes and tinder boxes that are easily and regularly set on fire, or they become a target for vandals. Empty homes are a breeding ground for vermin and a public health risk. Empty houses are used as rubbish tips, or as a convenient dumping ground. In a city where some districts have now not seen a refuse collector or a bin man for 13 weeks that means that they are often piled high with rubbish. Children then use them as local playgrounds. They risk contracting deadly diseases such as HIV or hepatitis B from the syringes that have been dumped in the properties. Empty houses are a catalyst for creeping dereliction and decay, which gradually erodes an entire terrace or neighbourhood.
I should like to quote from letters that I have received from constituents who can express far more eloquently than I can the problem of having to live next door to or in the same street as an empty property. Only this week, I received a letter from Mr. B. McKeown of 33 Cromer road, Liverpool 17. The Aigburth area, where Mr. McKeown lives, is a pleasant suburb. Despite all the caricatures that have appeared in the national media in the past few days, many parts of Liverpool are pleasant areas in which to live. However, despite the fact that Aigburth is a desirable residential district, it none the less contains vacant dwellings that cause the sort of problems that are described in Mr. McKeown's letter, which states:
"The nature of my concern is that this empty house has become a target for local vandals and its condition is deteriorating from day to day. Already there are virtually no window panes intact at the back of the house and the front windows are beginning to be 'put in'. There is open access to the yard of the house and the back door appears to be open … something needs to be done to get the property properly secure in order to prevent any of the potential hazards for local residents that neglected derelict buildings entail. I refer to possible drug and solvent abuse on the premises, physical danger to curious children (from broken glass and fittings etc.), potential violence and sex crimes against children and adults, 'bolt-holes' for burglars, increased incidence of house break-ins for the immediate neighbours, fire hazards, damage to neighbouring property from vandals. The list is endless."
I could replicate that letter with many more examples. My secretary, Mrs. Barbara Lewis, has taken nine letters from our files, dated 23 April, to show the range of letters that I sent on just one day to different departments in Liverpool about properties such as 70 Gladstone road, another on the corner of Cecily street and Wavertree road, and others in Royston street, and in Edge lane in Edgehill. There are many such properties in different parts of my constituency and throughout Liverpool as a whole. They are a bane to the people who have to live alongside them.
I have been given details of a particularly bad example by Councillor Mrs. Cathy Hancox who has complained about a property at 90 Ashbourne road in Aigburth, Liverpool 17. That case was so bad that it was considered by Liverpool city council, which resolved that the property was

123

"(a) an environmental eyesore and is detrimental to the immediate residents.

(b) the site is used for drug activities and anti-social behaviour; and

(c) as a result of (a) and (b) residents in the immediate area are living under a great deal of stress and emotional trauma."

Inevitably, the council found that the legislation was inadequate to force that property to be put back into proper use. Again, I could replicate that experience with examples from many parts of my constituency. They provide just a glimpse of what it is like for those who are unlucky enough to live next to such properties.
There is one reason above all others why this issue should be tackled head on. The fact that 700,000 properties stand vacant in our country today is an affront to the 150,000 homeless people in Liverpool and the 2 million families that Shelter says needs homes.
On 27 December 1990, The Guardian reported that the Minister had come to the same conclusion. The report stated:
"The Government is believed to be considering legislation to make up to 100,000 empty private homes available to the homeless.
A Department of Environment analysis is believed to have concluded that nearly one in six of the 600,000 empty properties in the private sector are empty for no justifiable reason."
That is a conclusion with which I concur. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight how that initiative is doing.
During the 1970s I served as the housing chairman of the Liverpool city council and as chairman of its special working party dealing with homelessness. For the past decade I have also been a trustee of Crisis, formerly Crisis at Christmas, which is the biggest charity in Britain dealing with homelessness. The Minister will know that this year we have allocated £1·96 million to 250 projects. Although Crisis welcomes the Department's £96 million London street homeless initiative, we expressed disappointment that only £3 million has so far been specifically targeted for other cities such as Liverpool and Manchester.
Stuart Craig, the director of Crisis, said:
"Our grants announced today will do much to help those who are living the nightmare of homelessness. But to ensure that people in the future do not have to suffer the same fate the Government must make the provision of cheap and affordable housing its number one priority."
Large numbers of Liverpool people drift to London and become homeless. Centrepoint in Soho says that over 10 per cent. of the homeless young people whom it saw last year came from the north-west of England, primarily from Liverpool and Manchester. It says:
"For too many of the young people we see, they have been homeless in their own area before moving to London and they have no option but to move to London where they presume they will have a greater opportunity of finding employment and accommodation. All too often, of course, they end up either on the streets or in emergency shelters.
Centrepoint would also be keen that homeless people from Liverpool wishing to return home could have access to housing in their 'home area'."
What can the Government do? Clearly, they can match the problem of homelessness and the drift to London by trying to put back into use the great resource of empty homes in areas such as Liverpool. They could draw up a register such as that suggested by Shelter, so that we can identify the empty properties in the country. They could
124
take punitive action against those, whether in the public or the private sector, who deliberately and wantonly leave properties empty and allow them to become derelict eyesores and breeding grounds for vermin. Such houses are often festering, dangerous, broken-backed properties. Instead, they could provide somewhere for people to live. These are simply and clearly home truths, with which I hope that the Minister will agree. I hope that he will address some of the points that I have raised tonight.
10.31 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for allowing me to take part in this short debate. The position in Liverpool that he described is a scandal. The Labour council is a disaster for all the people of Liverpool. But it is especially disastrous for the poorest members of the Liverpool community, many of whom are trying to bring up children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation where family life is impossible. That that can be allowed to happen is bad enough, but that it can be allowed to happen when there are more than 5,000 empty council properties in Liverpool is disgraceful. It shows that the Labour council in Liverpool does not care or is completely incompetent—or both. Whichever it is, the position is a disaster for many Liverpool families who deserve better.
Unfortunately, under a Labour-controlled council, the position in Liverpool will not improve unless my hon. Friend the Minister intervenes. Therefore, I ask him to examine closely the Empty Property and Community Aid Bill, which I introduced in 1988, with the support of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The Bill would help Liverpool enormously because it would ensure the maximum possible use of houses left empty for many years.
The mere existence of large numbers of empty properties is evidence that new initiatives are needed. The Bill would require local authorities to register all empty residential property and provide the Secretary of State for the Environment with an annual statement of their strategy for bringing back into use any empty properties that they own. Councils would be obliged to allow community groups such as housing associations and other voluntary bodies to use empty properties in their possession for housing homeless families unless the council can give a good reason why the properties should remain empty.
Clearly, there can be no reason why 5,000 properties in Liverpool should be empty. If the Empty Property and Community Aid Bill were law now, thousands of Liverpool families would have had the opportunity to be rehoused, an opportunity now denied them by the incompetence of the Labour-controlled council.
10.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on obtaining this opportune debate at a time when, once again, Liverpool is the focus of national attention. The voters of Walton are now confronted with the real face —or should I say faces—of the Labour party. The Labour party has sought to obscure one of those faces for the past two years. The hon. Gentleman rightly condemned the Labour party's past policy in the city.

125
I share the aims of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves).
The Government entirely reject the figures from Shelter which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill quoted. They are a gross exaggeration and are almost entirely without foundation in terms of the relationship that they bear to the true numbers of homeless.
I agree that we must make much better use of the existing housing stock. The existence of so many vacant properties, particularly those in the hands of local authorities, is nothing short of a national scandal. It must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, at the last count there were 100,000 empty council houses in the country of which more than 5,000 were in Liverpool. That is deeply disturbing. I t is all the more unsatisfactory against the background of large numbers of empty properties in the private sector to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill also referred.
That situation has been brought about largely by decades of hostility to the private landlord. Alas, that hostility, even though it is expressed by the Opposition alone, is enough to deter the majority of private landlords from risking the future security of their property by letting it in case of retrospective changes in legislation.
Almost 9 per cent. of the dwellings in the public sector in Liverpool are now vacant. Almost 6,000 properties are now lying vacant and are deteriorating. The reckless policies and the gross mismanagement of the Militant administration in the mid-1980s must take the main share of the blame for that state of affairs. That state of affairs has even been acknowledged by the former leader of the Liverpool Labour group, Mr. Coombes. After his resignation, he described the Labour-run council as
"the worst landlord in Liverpool, probably in the country".
He went on to acknowledge that
"The council's problems are not down to resources."
Even when the Liberals were in control of Liverpool council in the early 1980s they failed to tackle the difficulties that the city then faced. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has already admitted that he was chairman of the housing committee for part of that time.
Mr. Alton: I was chairman in the 1970s.
Mr. Yeo: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
The policy of total municipalisation as the answer to long-standing problems of disrepair has had a further damaging impact on the state of affairs in Liverpool.
In the 1980s, the Government urged the council to follow a pluralist approach of repairing and renewing existing stock, and, where necessary, of providing new housing for rent and sale. The city council not only disregarded that advice at the time, but set out on a deliberate policy of municipal new build. By doing so it spent disastrously beyond its means and created enduring difficulties for its successors and the people of Liverpool.
If any evidence is needed of the utter folly of expecting a monopoly local authority landlord to offer an effective response to the housing needs of a great city, one need look no further than Liverpool. The council pursued that policy through the late 1980s, and that exacerbated the difficulties already faced by the city and created a financial albatross that now inhibits the efforts of the city council. It will continue to do so for some time.
There is no sign whatever that either of the Labour candidates in the Walton by-election have learnt that lesson. The real Labour candidate, as so-called, Lesley
126
Mahmood, served as an official Labour councillor. How can we expect Labour candidates to learn that lesson when the Labour party leadership is still wedded to the idea of meeting every housing need by pouring more and more money into local authority hands regardless of how it is spent? When it comes to housing policy, the Labour party is still living in the 1950s.
The Government consider that in renewing the fabric of social housing we must provide choice and diversity of tenure. Tenants must have a measure of control over their environment and living conditions. Problems can often be solved simply through better management, especially where the greater involvement of tenants can be achieved. It is no coincidence that there are no estate management boards in Liverpool, despite its appalling problems.
The strategy developed by Labour for running Liverpool's housing in the mid-1908s involved channelling huge resources into a limited number of areas and leaving the remainder of the stock to deteriorate. Liverpool's record of managing and maintaining the great majority of its stock in recent years has been abysmal. Its rent policy has been equally disastrous, with no increases for almost eight years up to last year. The result has exacerbated the maintenance problems. Despite those low rents, it has failed to collect no less than £23 million. Furthermore, the council has deliberately chosen to work against the grain of Government policy, ignoring the role of housing associations as the main providers of new social housing and rejecting the enormous potential offered by the private sector.
The Government have responded in a number of ways. We are allocating large sums under our estate action programme to enable properties to be refurbished and reoccupied. Since the more moderate Labour administration of Councillor Harry Rimmer came to power, a large number of properties on five estates are being dealt with through the allocation of more than £35 million from the estate action programme.
As with other estate action programmes, that involves the residents of the estates in close discussions with the city council over the way in which their homes can be repaired. I am pleased to say that residents are responding enthusiastically. Even the city council is now keen to press ahead, although its financial difficulties, the result of putting into practice socialist dogma in the mid-1980s, is limiting its response.
The leader of the council, Harry Rimmer, has taken an initiative in conjunction with the chairman of the Housing Corporation, Sir Christopher Benson. The so-called Rimmer-Benson initiative proposed collaboration with several volume private house builders who would refurbish or convert blocks of vacant housing. The improved houses or flats would then either be sold or transferred to housing association ownership for rent, or rented within the private sector. There may also be opportunities for the involvement of housing co-operatives. That would address directly the problem of the many vacant properties in Liverpool.
Officials from my Department are working with Liverpool city council and the Housing Corporation to prepare a detailed assessment of the possibilities. I expect a report to go to my hon. Friend the Minister of State soon.
A further initiative offers prospects of improved housing. Hon. Members will know of the Government's policy on housing action trusts. It is based on the

127
successful renovation of the Stockbridge village in Merseyside. The recent agreement by residents to a HAT in Hull has stimulated Liverpool to consider whether it, too, could benefit from a similar venture, taking advantage of Government finanical resources and involving the support of the residents, other housing agencies and the private sector. The city is examining the possibilities in detail and we expect to hear from it soon. I hope that it takes advantage of this opportunity.
Merseyside has a strong tradition of activity and innovation in provision by housing associations, for both new build and refurbished properties. There are many excellent housing association schemes, some on former local authority sites and others on sites provided by the private sector. The Government have maintained a high level of funding to the housing associations, both to the main approved development programme and through the Merseyside special allocation instituted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some years ago.
As for private sector housing, the proportion of vacant dwellings in Liverpool is about 6 per cent. above the national average. I am glad to say that builders and developers have not deserted Merseyside during the economic downturn. Indeed, house prices have remained firm during the past couple of years. The range of housing available is impressive and includes a good proportion of cheap starter homes.
In addition, I am glad to say that some builders have taken a strong interest in the refurbishment of derelict non-residential buildings close to the centre of the city. I commend the house builders and developers who are prepared to take the risks attached to such ventures. The signs are that they are justified and that there is demand for refurbished properties close to the city centre.
I hope that when the city council comes to put in its bid to my right hon. Friend to be a pacemaker authority under the city challenge it will consider the prospects for refurbishment and redevelopment of existing semi-derelict
128
or derelict properties in the pacemaker area. I am sure that there are prospects of residential units for social housing, extra accommodation for students and better quality housing for city centre workers. Such a step would help to bring back the population to the centre—a, step which we all hope will be taken.
I am more confident about the prospects for dealing with the problems of vacant dwellings in Liverpool now that the controlling Labour group has seen the wisdom of the Government's approach to these matters and is showing signs of being prepared to work with, not against, the grain of our policies. I look forward over the next two or three years to a partnership between central and local government, the private sector and the housing association movement, together with the community, to sort out this severe problem of empty properties in Liverpool.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to his proposals for tackling empty properties and his suggestion that private landlords might be dealt with in what sounded like a somewhat punitive way in extreme cases. I am not attracted by that concept. There are already enough disincentives for the prospective private landlord without threatening further action against him. What we need is more carrot and less stick. That is a better way to get private homes for rent and why the Government have recently launched another initiative to promote the involvement of housing associations in the management of private property, with the aim of encouraging landlords to' consider letting to homeless families and individuals.
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue at an opportune time. I am not pessimistic about the future. I have explained that there are several initiatives which will help to improve housing in Liverpool and to decrease the number of vacant dwellings. All these initiatives have an excellent chance of success, provided that the city council does not return to its bad old ways.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail (Investment)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on British Rail investment for 1991–92, updating the information given in his answer to the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) of 22 February,Official Report, column 306.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 22 February we have approved the following further specific British Rail investment schemes:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Double-deck

  335

  200

  60

  5

  36

  34

  Single-deck

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Minibuses

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midibuses

  —

  48

  101

  89

  203

  371

  Total

  338

  248

  161

  94

  239

  425

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in tabular form for each year since 1985, the number of double-decker, single-decker, minibuses and midibuses, respectively, owned by London

  Age range(years)

  Year and type

  0–4

  4–8

  8–12

  12–15

  15+

  Total fleet

  1985

  Double-deck

  1,551

  674

  331

  —

  1,939

  4,495

  Single-deck

  —

  441

  34

  —

  —

  475

  Midibuses

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  1986

  Double-deck

  1,323

  1,197

  346

  —

  1,640

  4,506

  Single-deck

  —

  69

  381

  —

  —

  450

  Midibuses

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1987

  Double-deck

  1,121

  1,680

  385

  —

  1,227

  4,413

  Single-deck

  —

  69

  414

  —

  —

  483

  Midibuses

  56

  2

  —

  —

  —

  58

  1988

  Double-deck

  755

  1,539

  1,055

  50

  918

  4,317

  Single-deck

  —

  69

  416

  —

  —

  485

  Midibuses

  168

  2

  —

  —

  —

  170

  1989

  Double-deck

  461

  1,551

  1,337

  50

  813

  4,212

  Single-deck

  7

  —

  362

  80

  —

  449

  Midibuses

  370

  2

  —

  —

  —

  372

  2
  Network SouthEast

  59 coaches for Paddington line express services.

  86 coaches for south London and north Kent inner suburban services.

  Research and Development Grants
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) applications and (b) grants have been made under section 57 of the Transport Act 1968.

  Mr. Freeman
  Two and one respectively.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if private organisations looking into railway reopenings are eligible for grants under section 57 of the Transport Act 1968.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes.

  Buses
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new double-decker, single-decker, minibuses and midibuses, respectively, have been bought by London Buses Limited in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Buses Limited that were (a) under four years old, (b) four to eight years old, (c) eight to 12 years old, (d) 12 to 15 years old and (e) over 15 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information in this form is not available for minibuses. For other bus types, the information is as follows:
  3

  Age range (years)

  Year and type

  0–4

  4–8

  8–12

  12–15

  15+

  Total fleet

  1990

  Double-deck

  270

  1,323

  1,399

  394

  784

  4,170

  Single-deck

  12

  —

  250

  54

  —

  316

  Midibuses

  486

  20

  —

  —

  —

  906

  London Underground
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the agreed expenditure for investment in the Northern Line of London Underground which will take place over the next three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Only major investment projects which are called in are agreed by Ministers. We have approved the reconstruction of Angel station, at a total cost of £72 million, which will be completed in that period. The hon. Member should approach London Underground for details of other investment on the Northern line. None of it has been called in for approval.

  Bus Companies (Prosecutions)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions have been brought against bus companies for(a) drivers' hours violations and (b) vehicle standards violations in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1985 the Department of Transport enforcement staff have brought the following prosecutions against bus companies for drivers' hours violation:

  Number

  1985–86

  786

  1986–87

  369

  1987–88

  492

  1988–89

  814

  1989–90

  116

  Prosecutions for drivers' hours and roadworthiness offences are also undertaken by the police, but the statistics are not broken down between individual categories of vehicles.

  The vehicle inspectorate undertakes roadside checks of passenger carrying vehicles and prohibitions are placed on vehicles which are found to be unroadworthy, banning the further use of the vehicles on a public road until faults have been rectified. The number of checks and rate of prohibitions since 1985 are:

  Vehicles checked

  Prohibition rate per cent.

  1985–86

  12,575

  10·7

  1986–87

  17,767

  10·3

  1987–88

  19,649

  11·8

  1988–89

  17,747

  11·6

  1989–90

  19,495

  11·9

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  55,169

  1990–91

  67,012

  11991–92

  14,014

  1To date.

  Civil Servants (Retirements)
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the annual number of retirements by civil servants under rule 3.10a of the principal civil service pension scheme since that rule became effective on 1 April 1987.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that the number of non-industrial members of the home civil service who have retired early with actuarially reduced pension and lump sum benefits is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987–88

  632

  1988–89

  486

  1989–90

  362

  Complete figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial year 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The titles of the video recordings purchased during 1990–91 are listed in the table. No recordings have been purchased in 1991–92 to date.

  Video recordings purchased in 1990–91

  Constructive Criticism

  Positive Time Skills

  Next Steps—First Agencies

  Let's Be Fair

  Better Customer Care/The People Factor

  Pests on the Menu

  Exceptional Customer Service—Volumes 1 and 2

  The Way Ahead

  Public Sector Pay
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider establishing an independent arbitration tribunal to decide on pay award disputes between the Government and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and other unions representing civil and public employees.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The terms of the long term pay agreement between the Treasury and the NUCPS allow, subject to the agreement of both parties, for differences to be referred to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal— CSAT. Other long-term pay agreements between the Treasury and other unions representing non-industrial civil servants contain similar provisions.

  The CSAT, which is an independent tribunal established under the provisions of the civil service arbitration agreement, consists of an independent chairman and one member drawn from a panel of persons appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment as representing the Minister for the Civil Service and one member drawn from a panel of persons appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment as representing the trade union side of the national Whitley council.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the range and scope of his current inquiries into the effect of actions by banks on small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Officials from Her Majesty's Treasury and the Bank of England are looking at the banks' interest rates and charges to businesses, and the way that lending policies are being applied.

  National Farmers Union
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ministerial meetings have been held with the National Farmers Union between 1 May 1990 and 30 April 1991; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  No ministerial meetings were held between Treasury Ministers and the National Farmers Union between those dates.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take action to prevent the establishment of a cartel of clearing banks with regard to the interest rate margins afforded to small businesses.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 6 June 1991]: As is well known, the Treasury and the Bank of England are looking at the concerns that have been raised about the interest rates charged to small businesses. If anyone has any evidence of collusion between the banks, they should submit it to the Office of Fair Trading, which will of course consider it.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a copy of his clause 50 explanatory chart in the Library, after adding a bar for each year to illustrate the financial year for which each annual tax payment satisfied the Revenue.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: I have placed in the Library a copy of the explanatory chart referred to in the Standing Committee debate on clause 50.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Hampton Schools
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will ask Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools to investigate the long-term consequences of the offer in 1987 by Richmond-upon-Thames borough council of 30 more places to children aged five at Hampton infants school than there was room for and the extent to which the undertaking by the headteacher an employee of the local education authority that this group of children would be funded for all their infant and junior years has been adhered to;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of local management of schools at Hampton school, particularly relating to the funding of a fourth full-time teacher for the remaining children admitted to Hampton junior school in 1987.

  Mr. Fallon
  I understand that for the September 1987 intake Richmond education authority decided that 120 places should be offered at the Hampton infant school rather than the normal 90. The authority also gave an undertaking that additional teaching, welfare and capitation resources would be made available to meet the needs of the children in that year group; and that no other children at the school would be disadvantaged because of the larger numbers being admitted.

  I also understand that the authority is of the view that it has honoured these undertakings by providing additional accommodation at the Hampton infant and junior schools and at the Hampton Hill school; and that it has also provided the additional teaching and welfare resources it promised. Since April 1990, the school has been operating under the authority's scheme for the local management of schools.

  Under LMS, the Hampton junior school receives a budget based mainly on the number and age of its pupils. It therefore receives additional funding for the extra pupils who were admitted to Hampton infant school in 1987 and who have since transferred to Hampton junior school. This is also the case for those children from that year group who subsequently transferred to the Hampton Hill school.

  Within the national statutory framework and subject to the conditions in their LEA's scheme, it is a school's governing body which determines how to make best use of their funding to meet the particular educational needs and priorities of the school. Accordingly, it is for the governors of Hampton junior school to determine the level of staffing and the need for a fourth full-time teacher for this particular age group cohort.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect the introduction of local management of schools has on the ability of local education authorities to fulfil undertakings given to provide extra funding for an additional teacher for a cohort of pupils which is more numerous than the other cohorts in the school, due to an original error by the local education authority in allocating children to the school in a particular year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Under LMS, funds are allocated to schools through a formula on a clear and objective basis. This means that the funding available is distributed fairly: similar schools receive similar budgets which will depend mainly on the numbers and ages of the pupils. As LMS funds pupils, a school with a cohort of pupils which is larger than its other cohorts will receive additional funding on the basis of those extra pupils.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has offered through his Department to local education authorities about the implementation of the Children Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department, in consultation with the Department of Health, is issuing comprehensive guidance

  Science group staff

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991 (est)

  IACR

  803

  783

  789

  774

  750

  680

  557

  523

  480

  477

  449

  433

  IAH

  328

  311

  314

  310

  299

  307

  252

  283

  282

  264

  292

  283

  IAPGR

  343

  330

  338

  327

  326

  345

  331

  270

  254

  266

  337

  321

  IER

  131

  129

  138

  129

  124

  122

  133

  123

  97

  115

  115

  103

  IFR

  380

  394

  420

  434

  451

  447

  496

  473

  450

  435

  381

  245

  IGER

  431

  432

  441

  425

  435

  442

  388

  378

  381

  364

  308

  285

  IHR

  443

  430

  440

  438

  452

  425

  353

  323

  326

  318

  (295)

  (260)

  IPSR

  266

  282

  278

  274

  282

  279

  309

  373

  274

  271

  234

  234

  Total

  3,125

  3,091

  3,158

  3,111

  3,119

  3,047

  2,819

  2,746

  2,544

  2,510

  2,116

  1,90

  Non scientific staff

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991 (est)

  IACR

  401

  402

  411

  390

  368

  323

  273

  253

  229

  233

  251

  246

  IAH

  451

  448

  443

  440

  401

  359

  321

  281

  268

  237

  228

  227

  IAPGR

  338

  331

  330

  326

  288

  275

  258

  234

  224

  219

  222

  208

  IER

  240

  246

  263

  257

  252

  254

  237

  214

  208

  205

  194

  163

  IFR

  284

  290

  290

  284

  284

  223

  213

  211

  198

  192

  171

  131

  IGER

  324

  315

  329

  324

  316

  302

  291

  266

  260

  253

  224

  209

  IHR

  359

  364

  362

  361

  339

  325

  304

  286

  265

  269

  (269)

  (245)

  IPSR

  159

  166

  164

  160

  153

  145

  140

  137

  90

  93

  92

  92

  Total

  2,556

  2,562

  2,592

  2,542

  2,401

  2,206

  2,037

  1,182

  1,742

  1,701

  1,382

  1,276

  (1,651)

  (1,521)

  Notes:

  1. Abbreviations:

  IACR—Institute of Arable Crops Research.

  IAH—Institute of Animal Health.

  IAPGR—Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research.

  IER—Institute of Engineering Research.

  IFR—Institute of Food Research.

  IGER—Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research.

  IHR—Institute of Horticultural Research.

  IPSR—Institute of Plant Science Research.

  2. IHR became part of the British Society for Horticultural Research (BSHR) on 1 April 1990. The BSHR has recently been remaned as Horticulture Research International (HRI). The figures in brackets show the number of AFRC staff seconded to HRI.

  3. The figures for IACR for 1980–84 include the former Letcombe Laboratory and the Weed Research Organisation, which closed in 1985
  8
  on the implementation of the Act, all of which is going to local education authorities. Copies will be placed in the Library. Advice of particular interest to LEAs is contained in the Department's circulars 2/91 and 3/91, about the approval of independent schools to admit children with statements of special educational need and the approval of special schools, and in the document "Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children". Guidance on the operation of education supervision orders will be published shortly.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the total numbers for staff employed at each of the AFRC institutes since 1980 and his estimates up until 1993; and, in each case, which are(a) scientists and (b) non-scientist; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Agricultural and Food Research Council-funded institutes were restructured during the period 1985 to 1987. For ease of reference, the figures for staff in post are shown on the basis of the present institutes of research.

  The figures for actual numbers employed at 1 April in the relevant years to 1990 and an estimate for 1991 are shown in tables 1 and 2.
  9
  and 1986 respectively. They also include the former Soil Survey and Land Resource Centre, which was transferred to the Cranfield Institute of Technology in 1986–87.

  4. The figures for IPSR for 1980–86 include that part of the former Plant Breeding Institute which was purchased by Unilever plc in 1986–87.

  The number of staff employed on 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993 will depend on a number of factors, including the funding available to the AFRC through the science budget and the extent of commissions from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and external funded research. The present estimate is that the number of scientific staff employed at the AFRC at its institutes and Horticulture Research International will be about 1,935 and the number of non-scientific staff will be about 1,300 on each date. No breakdown of anticipated staffing levels at each AFRC institute is available. These figures are expected to remain constant into 1993–94.

PRIME MINISTER

  Foundation for Sports and the Arts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about progress towards the establishment of a Foundation for Sport and the Arts.

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to say that the three members of the Pools Promoters Association have now confirmed that they will set up the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I understand that the pools promoters are now working hard to finalise the trust deed under which the foundation will operate, and will soon be appointing the first trustees. The way is now clear for the Government to make the reduction in pool betting duty announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech and new clauses to the Finance Bill have been tabled.

  Holy Loch
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Prime Minister what agreements there are between the United States of America and United Kingdom Governments concerning the establishment and use of the United States base at Holy Loch.

  The Prime Minister
  Details of the agreements between the United Kingdom and United States Governments for the use of the Holy Loch by the United States Navy are confidential between the two Governments.

ENVIRONMENT

  Hostel Deficit Grant
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid out in hostel deficit grant to housing associations in England in the last five years for which figures are available; and how many units of accommodation were covered by hostel deficit grant in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of units of accommodation provided for from hostel deficit grant in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Yeo
  Hostel deficit grant payments to housing associations in England in each of the last five years were as follows:
  10

  £'000

  1986–87

  6,628

  1987–88

  9,457

  1988–89

  19,005

  1989–90

  28,494

  1990–91

  38,500

  Information relating to the number of units of accommodation covered by hostel deficit grant payments in each of these years is not available, but currently there are approximately 37,000 bed spaces in respect of which housing associations are able to claim hostel deficit grant.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the Statutory Instruments on local government finance he intends to publish prior to the summer adjournment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department will be laying before Parliament the following statutory instruments before the summer adjournment:The Non-Domestic Rating (Transitional Period) (Further provision) Regulations

  These will make amendments to the transitional arrangements for non-domestic rating in respect of statutory changes of occupier.
  The Non-Domestic Rating (Payment of Interest) (Amendment) Regulations

  These will amend the rules governing the payment of interest in respect of overpayments arising as a result of alterations to the non-domestic rating list.
  Repeals and Consequential Amendments Order

  This will make a number of repeals and amendments to previous Acts, especially the Local Government Act 1972.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place copies in the Library of the responses he has received on his consultation paper on local government finance; and if he will list in the Official Report all those organisations which have expressed opposition to his proposal for seven property bands.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is the Department's policy to place in the Library a list of all those who have responded to consultation. Copies of the responses themselves are normally deposited in the Department's library, and made available for inspection. We are currently studying the representations which have been received.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement before the summer adjournment on the results of his consultation exercise on local government finance.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are currently studying the representations which have been received. The next steps will be made clear in due course.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to make an announcement on his proposed outline financial settlement for local authorities for 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  When he is ready to do so.
  11
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he offers to local authorities on the legal processes necessary to enforce the payment of community charges.

  Mr. Key
  The Local Government Finance Act 1988 widened the methods available to local authorities, compared with domestic rates, to recover community charges if a chargepayer does not respond to a reminder, summons or the issue of a liability order. Authorities may now attach the chargepayer's earnings, obtain deductions from income support or distrain and sell goods. Authorities can also, of course, come to an arrangement with the chargepayer for paying off his debt. If these methods fail to produce payment of the debt, an authority can apply for a warrant for committal to prison. If the court decides that a chargepayer's failure to pay was due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect it can impose a prison sentence of up to three months. My Department has issued a practice note and a series of letters which give guidance on all aspects of the operation of the community charge enforcement system.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to establish the local government commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are currently consulting on our proposal to establish a new local government commission. We intend to introduce legislation to establish the commission in the next Session of Parliament.

  Power Station, Isle of Man
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to undertake an assessment of the potential environmental effects on mainland Britain of the proposed power station sited in the River Neb valley, Isle of Man; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am advised that the proposed power station at Peel in the Isle of Man is small in size—40 MW—and will replace an existing power station on an adjacent site. I am further advised that the Manx Electricity Authority has taken Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's published guidance into account in formulating its proposals and that there is expected to be an overall environmental improvement.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current water treatment plants in England and Wales producing drinking water, whose aluminium content is above the European Community limits; and by how much each treatment plant is in excess of these limits.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is not held centrally. Summary information on aluminium in water supplies throughout England and Wales during 1990 is being collated and will appear in the report of the chief inspector of the drinking water inspectorate, to be published in July.

  Local Government (Sick Days)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many days were lost through sickness in local government in the last available year, and what is the number of statutory sick days allowed in each sector.

  Mr. Key
  My Department does not collect information on time off through sickness in local government. The terms and conditions of employment of local authority staff, including time off through sickness, are, by section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972, a question to be settled by each local authority.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial year 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department does not keep central records of such purchases and the information could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  House Building
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures for house building in 1990 for each local authority, breaking down the figures into private, local authority, housing association and new town units.

  Mr. Yeo
  The figures requested are shown in Table I(a) of "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales", No. 97—April 1991—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish statistics listing the number of homeless applicants and the number of people housed under the homeless persons legislation by each local authority in England and Wales in each of the last five years for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information relates to the number of households on whom inquiries have been completed by local authorities under the homelessness legislation and, of these, the number accepted and found accommodation. This is already published.

  The reported figures for individual local authorities appear quarterly in "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales". Annual totals for 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 are given in table 9(b) of volume Nos. 82, 86, 90 and 94, respectively. The 1990 totals are not yet published but figures for the four quarters separately are in table 9(a) of No. 94 and in table 9 of Nos. 95 to 97 of the same publication. Copies are in the Library.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Information about full-time and part-time public appointments and levels of remuneration
  13
  for the past five years for which my Department was responsible is given in the annual HMSO publication "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations". Copies of these publications are held in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Action Guide
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to produce the "Environmental Action Guide"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The "Environmental Action Guide" is now being printed and should be published by HMSO, on behalf of the Department of the Environment, in July. Copies will be placed in the Library. The more detailed advisory notes on specific technical and management topics will follow as soon as possible.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial year(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Within my Department responsibility for expenditure on hospitality is delegated to senior managers, subject to detailed rules. No central record is kept of the individual items. Total expenditure for my Department, including the Property Services Agency services, the Building Research Establishment agency, the Historic Royal Palaces agency and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre agency, is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  83,500

  1990–91

  1145,000

  1991–92

  220,000

  1 Provisional.

  2 To date.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action would be necessary for a parish or town council in England to be dissolved.

  Mr. Key
  A parish or town council in England can only be dissolved while the parish or town remains as a local government area, if there are fewer than 150 local government electors in the parish or town. In such cases the district council, on the application of the parish meeting, may by order dissolve the council.

  A district council may review a parish or town and propose that its area should cease to form part of any parish. Such a proposal, if endorsed by the Local Government Boundary Commission and implemented by an order of the Secretary of State, would result in the end of the parish or town as a local government area, and with it the end of the parish or town council.

  Tribunals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given for a new title of the present valuation and community charge 14
  tribunals once the new council tax comes into effect; if he will be issuing new guidance notes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Government's consideration of the council tax appeal arrangements will include the matters mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Community Charge (Students)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether students normally resident in Northern Ireland but who spend approximately nine months of term time attending university in England, Scotland or Wales are required to pay community charge for July, August and September, when residing in their parents' homes in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Key
  Full-time students in England, Scotland and Wales are treated as having their sole or main residence at the place where they are resident for the purpose of undertaking the course. They are therefore liable to pay the community charge at their term time address from the day the course commences until the day it ceases, including vacations.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many(a) self-contained units and (b) bed spaces in housing association rehabilitation schemes received initial project approval for housing association grant in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and are planned for 1991–92 excluding re-improvements to existing properties owned by housing associations or local authorities for (1) Greater London, (2) inner London and (3) each London borough;

  (2) how many units or bed spaces in housing association rehabilitation schemes received project approval under the Housing Corporation's new programme for rent in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 and are planned for 1991–92 excluding re-improvements to existing housing association properties for (a) Greater London, (b) inner London and (c) each London borough distinguishing between self-contained units and bed spaces.

  Sir George Young
  These are matters for the Housing Corporation. I have therefore asked the corporation to respond to the hon. Member direct. The subsequent reply will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Cavity Wall Insulation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals for improved standards of thermal insulation in building regulations in respect of cavity wall insulation; and if he will revise the approved document entitled "Conservation of Fuel and Power" so as to require U values to be calculated on a more realistic basis.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Building Research Establishment is carrying out a study to see how the higher standards for the conservation of fuel and power in the building regulations, which came into force last year, are working in practice. The results of this study, together with other work, will be used as a basis for considering how the standards in the building regulations can be further strengthened.
  15
  I have received from Eurisol a copy of its report of an investigation into the heat loss through certain cavity wall constructions. I have asked the Building Research Establishment to examine the report, and its supporting evidence, and advise on any implications for the building regulations.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the length of time that will be available for public consultation on the draft of a revised mineral plan guidance note 6.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is not the intention to publish draft guidelines for consultation until the end of this year at the earliest. A decision will be taken at that time over the time length for public consultation but it is expected to be three months.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations, including staff and running costs, in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Further to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member on 25 and 30 April,Official Report, column 492, and column 137, respectively, the latest estimate of outturn for 1990–91 is £7·7 million and the current budget for 1991–92 is £6·8 million; the latter figure excludes Property Services Agency services and the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre where budgets have not yet been finalised.

  Drought Precautions
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures have been taken to secure water supplies in the event of a hot, dry summer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  While skilful resource management and average rainfall last winter restored the levels of most surface water reservoirs, the cumulative effect of two hot, dry summers, and three relatively dry winters has severely reduced the levels of water stored underground in aquifers. In parts of the south-east and east, some groundwater levels are at the lowest recorded for the time of year.

  The prime responsibility for ensuring the adequacy of water supplies rests with the water companies, under the Water Act 1989. But the National Rivers Authority is responsible for abstraction licenses and for ensuring that water resources are used judiciously. I have therefore been consulting Lord Crickhowell, chairman of the National Rivers Authority, about the measures that have been taken to secure water supplies should we see a return to hot, dry weather this summer. This statement reflects these consultations.

  Contingency planning to overcome potential difficulties has been carried out, drawing on experience gained over the past two years. Supported by the Government, the NRA has placed particular emphasis on the need for close liaison with the water undertakers and other interested parties, such as the National Farmers Union. A number of
  16
  ad hoc groups are also in place for assessing the situation and developing plans to alleviate possible difficulties. In accordance with the contingency plans developed in this way, appropriate measures are being phased in as the situation demands.

  Among the first steps aimed at conserving resources has been the widespread use of publicity campaigns to alert the general pubic, industry and agriculture to possible shortages of water. Such campaigns have been promoted both by the NRA and water supply undertakers through the press, radio, television and also the distribution of leaflets, public meetings and visits to schools. These campaigns are planned to continue throughout the summer in areas at risk and are generally aimed at increasing awareness of the situation and encouraging the wise use of water.

  Plans to use water resources to best effect are being implemented as necessary by reducing abstractions from sources that are running low, such as aquifers in the south-east, while increasing supplies drawn from rivers and reservoirs. Where appropriate, existing pipeline links have been supplemented by advancing the construction of those planned for the future or by laying temporary pipes. Also, in some cases water companies and the NRA have applied to my right hon. Friend for drought orders authorising increased abstractions or reduced discharges, which has helped to refill reservoirs during the winter and secure additional resources for the summer, and water companies in some areas have been able to develop new bore holes or recommission previously abandoned sources.

  To reduce demand, water companies have introduced hosepipe or sprinkler bans in the affected areas and these have been shown to produce worthwhile savings. A sprinkler can use in one hour as much water as an average family in one day, or even more; indeed, when demand is high in summer, bans are sometimes necessary because distribution systems cannot cope.

  In collaboration with the NRA, and in consultation with NFU and others, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has sought improvements in the way that water is applied to crops and the manner in which restrictions should best be imposed. The result is a leaflet on good irrigation practice. Apart from the potential savings in the use of water, the guidance provides for early warning by the NRA of the need to impose restrictions on spray irrigation. It is now being applied in the NRA's Anglian region.

  In the longer term, the NRA is making plans to ensure that resources are developed to meet demand into the next century. As a first step, the NRA has published a preliminary survey of the prospects for public water supplies to the year 2011, in a report entitled "Demand and Resources of Water Undertakers in England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library.

  In addition, the NRA is investigating options for the strategic development of water resources including major new water transfer schemes. It is taking a fresh look at options hitherto considered uneconomic, such as a national grid and desalination, and expects to publish initial results this autumn. These results will then contribute to the NRA's development of a broad national development strategy to meet expected demand from all sources.

  Mineral Workings
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he proposes to take to protect the environment, in addition to any schemes of working that may be agreed by local planning authorities, in those areas where (i) a dormant Interim Development Order —IDO—permission is re-activated following registration or (ii) mineral working continues to take place under active IDO permissions, in the period before the introduction of any changes to the powers of local authorities established under the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 as a result of the current review of that Act;

  (2) when he will publish the findings of the working group currently undertaking the review of local authorities' powers under the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981;

  (3) what steps he proposes to take to compensate property owners who suffer blight as a result of discovering they live in or adjacent to prospective mineral workings following registration of IDO permissions;

  (4) what plans he has to include environmental and amenity organisations in the working group currently undertaking the review of local authorities' powers under the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will list the members of the working group currently undertaking the review of local authorities' powers under the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981, and if he will state the basis on which members were appointed.

  Mr. Yeo
  The amendments that the Government introduced in the Planning and Compensation Bill at Report stage on 16 May to deal with IDOs, provide that a dormant IDO permission cannot be reactivated until a scheme of operating and restoration conditions has been approved by the mineral planning authority. In any other case, such a scheme must be submitted for the mineral planning authority's approval within 12 months of the permission being registered.

  These amendments will ensure that in a relatively short period of time the details of all valid IDO permissions will be known, that the permissions are brought up to acceptable standards and that dormant sites cannot be reactivated without warning or proper conditions.

  It would not be appropriate to make provision for compensation for property owners who find themselves living adjacent to mineral working sites. However, the proposals in the Planning and Compensation Bill will ensure that all sites operate to acceptable standards. Statutory blight provisions only apply where there is a formal indication that land may need to be acquired by a body possessing compulsory powers. Where nuisance arises from development carried out under statutory powers, legislation is in place to compensate affected landowners for depreciation. Where land is affected by nuisance from private development, it is open to any owner to take action against those causing the nuisance or for him to seek damages through the courts.

  The amendments we have introduced to deal with 1DOs do not preclude the mineral planning authority from taking action under their existing powers, introduced by the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. The Government have announced that they are reviewing these powers and this review is being undertaken by officials
  18
  with the assistance of a small informal working group comprising three representatives of the County Planning Officers Society and three representatives of the minerals industry. The review, which is already under way, is examining the technical details of the provisions. The Government have no plans to change the membership of the working group. However, interested bodies are welcome to submit representations, and any proposed changes arising from the review will be the subject of full public consultation, including environmental and amenity groups, before decisions are taken. I hope that this consultation exercise will take place next year.

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has drawn from his recent visit to Heveningham hall.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: My right hon. Friend visited Heveningham hall on 2 June. His impression was that, while much remains to be done, good progress has been made with the restoration work recently. English Heritage will continue to monitor the situation and keep us informed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Offal
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the spreading on land of protein material derived from specified bovine offal.

  Mr. Gummer
  The specified offals may not be used in human or animal feed, and therefore normal commercial outlets have disappeared for the small quantity of material resulting when these offals are rendered—some 25,000 to 30,000 tonnes per year, out of the rendering industry's total annual output of some 400,000 tonnes of protein material.

  The Government asked the Tyrrell committee to advise on its possible use as a fertiliser. The committee's view was that it should not be used. The risk of the agent being present or transmitted was remote, but it was better to be super-safe. There were alternative means of disposal — burning, burial or use as fuel. So on balance it would be wise not to use material derived from specified offal as fertiliser.

  It is therefore intended to make an order under the Animal Health Act to require that the protein material obtained from specified bovine offal should be disposed of either on licenced landfill sites, by incineration, or by such other means as may be licensed by the agriculture Departments.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Curry
  The readily available information about the appointments for which the Department is responsible, all
  19
  of which are part time, is given in "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations" and annually in "Public Bodies", copies of which are in the Library.

  Oil-seed Rape
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the market for the expected harvest of the oil-seed rape crop this year; and what estimates he has made of the likelihood of a surplus.

  Mr. Curry
  There is crushing capacity for some 1·5 million tonnes of rape seed in the United Kingdom, and significant quantities of rape seed are also incorporated directly into animal feed. There is an export market for United Kingdom rape seed elsewhere in the European Community. It is too early to predict how the market for the 1991 crop will develop.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence there is that the production of oil-seed rape is injurious to the health of humans or to the ecological interest of the immediate locality.

  Mr. Curry
  In common with other agriculturally grown or naturally occurring vegetation, the pollen of oil-seed rape may affect some species, including human beings. However, I am not aware of any conclusive scientific evidence that this crop is injurious to the ecology of the immediate locality. Matters concerning human health are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Like any other crop, cross-pollinisation can occur and it is quite normal to protect crops by zoning where purity is needed.

  Year

  Guarantee section1

  Guidance section

  Other CAP expenditure2

  Total expenditure on the CAP1

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  1985

  19,728

  11,601

  690

  406

  52

  31

  20,470

  12,037

  1986

  22,119

  14,330

  727

  471

  47

  30

  22,893

  14,831

  1987

  22,950

  16,508

  863

  621

  32

  23

  23,845

  17,152

  1988

  27,640

  18,749

  1,142

  775

  58

  39

  28,840

  19,564

  1989

  25,849

  16,925

  1,349

  883

  49

  32

  27,247

  17,840

  1990

  26,426

  18,416

  1,825

  1,272

  77

  54

  28,328

  19,742

  1991

  33,326

  23,225

  2,011

  1,401

  363

  253

  35,701

  24,879

  1992

  36,470

  25,416

  2,704

  1,884

  364

  254

  39,538

  27,554

  1 Figures for 1991 and 1992 include 1,000 mecu monetary reserve (£697 million).

  2 Other agricultural expenditure comprises mainly 50 per cent. of set-aside (since 1989) and income aids (since 1991).

  Sources:

  1985 to 1990: Outturn figures.

  1991: Budget.

  1992: Preliminary draft budget.

  Thames Estuary (Marine Aggregates)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee and other fishing interests about proposals for an increase in extraction of marine aggregates in the shallow coastal waters of the Thames estuary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee and other fishing interests have expressed concern that an increase in extraction of marine aggregate from the outer Thames estuary would harm fisheries.
  20
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the area devoted to the cultivation of oil-seed rape this year; and what was the area so used in 1990 and 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  The information sought is as follows:

  1991: 450,000 hectares (estimate)

  1990: 390,000 hectares

  1989: 321,000 hectares.

  Surpluses
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the current level of surplus produce in British intervention stores; and what proposals he has for disposing of them.

  Mr. Curry
  Tables showing EC and United Kingdom intervention stock levels are deposited in the Library of the House each month. Any disposal of intervention stocks has to be approved by the European Commission and a number of schemes are currently operating for the commodities held in United Kingdom stores.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give figures for the common agricultural policy budget for each year since 1985, including the amount set for 1992, giving figures separately for(a) the guarantee section and (b) the guidance section.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is given in the table:

  The Government's policy is that licences will be granted for extraction of aggregate only where this is possible without unacceptable damage to sea fisheries and the marine environment. The fishing industry will be fully consulted on any application. The Ministry will ensure that any application for a licence will be given a careful scientific scrutiny to ensure the protection of fisheries.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts spent by his Department on the Agricultural and Food Research Council for each year since 1979 in(a) cash and (b) real terms.
  21
  Mr. Gummer
  MAFF commissions with the Agricultural and Food Research Council since 1979–80, in both cash and real terms, are as set out in the table.

  Year

  cash £ million

  1real terms (1979–80=100)

  1979–80

  30·4

  100·0

  1980–81

  37·4

  104·3

  1981–82

  44·3

  114·8

  1982–83

  48·6

  117·4

  1983–84

  51·3

  118·1

  1984–85

  52·8

  114·8

  1985–86

  51·8

  107·6

  1986–87

  47·9

  96·7

  1987–88

  44·2

  84·5

  1988–89

  46·4

  82·6

  1989–90

  46·0

  76·3

  1990–91

  45·6

  69·7

  1 Using the GDP deflator.

  Blue Ear Pig Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his veterinarians have been drafted into(a) the Lincoln veterinary centre and (b) other areas, as a result of blue ear disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  One veterinarian spent two days on detached duty at the Lincoln veterinary investigation centre and veterinarians have spent a total of 38 man days on detached duty in other areas as a result of blue ear pig disease.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "The Feldberg Inquiry"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reasons his Department's inspectors gave for persuading Professor Feldberg to use rabbits rather than cats for the experiments detailed in the Medical Research Council report "The Feldberg Inquiry".

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 5(6) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires special justification for the use of cats, dogs, primates and equidae. Following implementation of the Act, it became standard practice for inspectors to require research workers who were using cats to change, whenever possible, to alternative species. As a result, during the summer of 1989, when Professor Feldberg's research reached a stage when his use of cats was no longer considered essential, the inspector urged Professor Feldberg to change to rabbits, so that his authority to work on cats could be withdrawn.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the experiments detailed in Medical Research Council report "The Feldberg Inquiry" were justified under section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In September 1989, Professor Feldberg sought the inspector's permission for a change to his project licence in connection with research he was undertaking into the regulation of blood sugar. He wished to replace a procedure involving the injection of drugs into the brain with one which he considered could produce a similar effect but involved the heating of the abdomen of the rabbit.
  22
  Contrary to the comments made in the Medical Research Council's report, the licence amendment would not have been granted unless the adverse effects had been weighed against the potential benefit of the work, as required by section 5 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The change proposed involved replacing a procedure with a less invasive technique. The inspector's judgment that the proposed change to Professor Feldberg's work was justifiable was an opinion confirmed some months later by two of the three independent experts consulted by the Medical Research Council.

  Fox Hunts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will seek a report from the chief constable of(a) South Yorkshire and (b) West Yorkshire on the total number of police involved in policing fox hunts during the last 12 months; and if he will give the cost involved;

  (2) if he will seek a report from the chief constable of (a) South Yorkshire and (b) West Yorkshire listing the number of occasions during the last 12 months, when police video cameras were used to film hunt protesters, showing the locations where they were used.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The policing of hunts and the deployment of officers are operational matters entirely for the discretion of the chief officer. I understand that, over the past year, a total of about 25 officers from South Yorkshire Police have at various times attended fox hunts to deal with disorder. The costs involved are not readily available and could not be determined at disproportionate cost. West Yorkshire police has not deployed officers specifically to police fox hunts. Neither force has used video cameras at fox hunts on any occasion.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The readily available information about the appointments of which my Department was responsible in the past five years, including salary details, is given in "Public Bodies" which is published annually and in "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations" which also gives information as to when appointments fall for renewal. Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he accepts the Medical Research Council's recommendations that(a) the establishment of Home Office inspectors needs to be increased, and (b) their role to be re-examined with a view to their being more involved in the monitoring of the treatment of animals during experiments.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 11 March 1991 to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) at column 335.
  23
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-purpose bred animals were supplied to the Charing Cross and Westminster medical schools within the last year; by whom they were supplied; and for what specific experiments they were supplied.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is not normally our practice to provide such detailed information about individual scientific procedure establishments, but I have the agreement of the medical school to say that no such animals were supplied within the last year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to take in order to detect contraventions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 by personal and project licence holders.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The controls to ensure the proper conduct of animal procedures within scientific user establishments operate at a number of levels. Certificate holders for establishments designated under section 6 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are answerable to my right hon. Friend for ensuring that the requirements of the Act are fully observed. In addition, the management of research projects and the control of the application of procedures to animals are achieved through conditions attached to project and personal licences. In many cases, project licences are discussed with inspectors

  Table A: Number of deaths in prison by year and by ethnic origin 1 January 1981–14 June 1991

  Year

  White

  West Indian

  Indian

  Pakistani

  African

  Arab

  Mixed

  Total

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  58

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  61

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  64

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  58

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80

  1989

  71

  3

  3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  180

  1990

  82

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  87

  19912

  27

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  32

  1 Ethnic origin not recorded for one prisoner.

  2 To 14 June.

  Table B: Deaths in police custody or otherwise with the police 1 January 1981–14 June 1991

  Year

  Metropolitan Police

  Other forces (England and Wales)

  Total

  1981

  27

  22

  49

  1982

  27

  28

  55

  1983

  18

  25

  43

  1984

  15

  19

  34

  1985

  14

  23

  37

  1986

  15

  26

  41

  1987

  28

  26

  54

  1988

  30

  38

  68

  1989

  37

  36

  73

  1990

  20

  41

  61

  19911

  8

  16

  24

  1 To June 14.

  24
  and advice is given before a formal application is made. Project licence holders and personal licensees are answerable to certificate holders and to the Home Office.

  Infringements of the Act, or of licences issued under it, come to light generally during visits made by inspectors, when they observe procedures being carried out, discuss the progress of the research and examine the records which are required to be kept. Most visits by inspectors are unannounced.

  The appendix to the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain", gives the number of infringements dealt with each year, together with details of the action taken.

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by ethnic group, and by year for the last 10 years, the number of deaths that have occurred whilst a person was held in(a) prison and (b) police custody.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The total number of deaths in prison in each year since 1981 and the number of deaths by ethnic origin since 1989 are shown in table A. Information on ethnic origin for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The total number of deaths in police custody in each year since 1981 is shown in table B. Information on ethnic origin is not available.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners have ever been in care.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Police (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Sussex constabulary on the number of hours lost through sick leave by the Sussex police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the calendar year 1990, the Sussex police recorded a total of 30,163 days sick leave—based on an eight-hour day. This amounts to 4·4 per cent. of available working days or an average of 10·1 days per officer. Both figures are below the national average.
  25
  Accounts of positive action being taken by the Sussex police to control and monitor sick absence appear in the chief constable's report for 1990 and in a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the force inspection undertaken in November last year. Copies of these are available in the Library. A further interim inspection is due to take place in November 1991. My right hon. Friend does not propose to call for a separate report.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of days lost through sickness by the police for the last available year, and the number of statutory sick days allowed in each section.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the calendar year 1990 an average of 11·6 days per officer were lost through sickness in provincial forces and 12·5 days in the Metropolitan police. In line with general legislation, regulation 34 of the Police Regulations 1987 (as amended) provides for officers to take seven days self-certificated leave per year. This is at the discretion of the police authority. Thereafter, a doctor's certificate is required.

  Red Cross Report (Detainees)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, further to the reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on 7 June, he intends to make any changes to the conditions under which detainees would be held in future in the light of the comments made in the Red Cross report.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Any exceptional detention arrangements which might be necessary in a future emergency would be considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Criminal Convictions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of males aged 15, 20, 25 and 30 years, respectively, have had a serious criminal conviction.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is in the table. This information has been produced from a series of cohort studies of persons born in 1953, 1958 and 1963, published in Home Office statistical bulletin 32/89.

  Males born in 1953, 1958 and 1963 and convicted of a Standard List1 offence.

  Convicted before age

  Percentage Year of birth

  1953

  1958

  1963

  15

  11

  11

  10

  20

  23

  25

  25

  25

  29

  31

  2ֵ

  30

  33

  2ֵ

  2ֵ

  1 All indictable offences plus aggravated assault, assault on a constable and cruelty to a child.

  2 Not available.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been heard and found proved for non-payment of(a) the community charge and (b) the uniform business
  26
  rate at magistrates' courts in (i) Doncaster, (ii) Kensington and Chelsea and (iii) Wandsworth for the latest date he has available; and if he will show in his Answer what percentage of the population this represents.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Community Charge

  Uniform business rate

  per cent.

  Doncaster

  9,429

  4·3

  21

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,830

  8·3

  423

  Wandsworth

  19,342

  9·8

  751

  The percentages of the population these figures represent, as shown in brackets, are based on the number of persons entered on the relevant community charge registers. The figures for Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth cover the period 1 April 1990 to 12 June 1991 while those for Doncaster cover the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991.

  Local Radio
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the indirect ownership of independent local radio stations by local authorities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the provisions of schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990, local authorities, and any body corporate in which a local authority is a participant with more than 5 per cent. interest, are disqualified from holding an independent local radio licence.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have investments in holding companies with shares in independent local radio stations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is for the Radio Authority, and not the Government, to enforce the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to ownership of independent local radio stations. It is, therefore, a matter for the authority to monitor investment by local authorities in such stations.

  Police Training
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the training needs of the police in relation to the provisions of the Road Traffic Bill; and what guidance he expects to give on this new legislation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office will be issuing guidance to chief officers of police on the provisions of the legislation. The guidance is being prepared in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and training needs will be identified in that process.

  Wolds Remand Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies have been invited to tender for the Wolds remand prison contract.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Nine.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases for the non-payment of poll tax are awaiting trial at Crown courts.

  Mr. John Patten
  None. Community charge enforcement proceedings in England and Wales are conducted in the magistrates courts and the Crown court has no jurisdiction.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the advice he is giving to local authorities regarding enforcing Sunday trading provisions before the House of Lords' appeal on the European defence is determined.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have not generally considered it either appropriate or necessary to issue guidance to local authorities about enforcement of the law on Sunday

  Principal applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality

  1988

  11989

  1 21990

  1*1991

  Number of principal applicatiokns excluding dependants

  Zaire

  150

  470

  860

  2,580

  Angola

  40

  210

  630

  2,320

  Sri Lanka

  400

  1,780

  3,250

  1,770

  Pakistan

  330

  230

  1,240

  1,240

  Uganda

  410

  1,230

  1,580

  1,000

  Ghana

  170

  320

  530

  1,000

  Turkey

  330

  2,350

  800

  960

  Somalia

  300

  1,850

  1,480

  850

  India

  290

  600

  1,360

  740

  Ethiopia

  230

  550

  1,640

  720

  Lebanon

  150

  180

  1,080

  550

  Togo/Ivory Coast

  —

  10

  n.a.

  400

  Iraq

  160

  210

  940

  380

  Iran

  390

  330

  340

  220

  Other African nationalities

  230

  320

  550

  3850

  Other non-African nationalities

  510

  730

  1,230

  1,420

  Nationality not yet recorded

  —

  —

  4,500

  —

  Total—all nationalities

  3,950

  11,200

  22,000

  17,000

  Total number of applicants including dependants4

  5,570

  16,400

  30,000

  n.a.

  1 Provisional and estimated figures.

  2 The 1990 estimates for specific nationalities are likely to understate because of delays in recording, particularly for African cases. The estimate of cases not yet recorded, and the 1990 total, may also understate.

  3 Figures may understate.

  4 Includes dependants applying with the principal applicant, and those, to date, arriving subsequently but before the principal application was decided.

  * January to April.

  Fighting Dogs
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific action he proposes to safeguard the public from breeds of fighting dogs, including the pit bull terrier; and if he will consider banning the importation, breeding and sale of these breeds in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 20 May 1991]: As the hon. Member will know, the Government have recently introduced the Dangerous Dogs Bill aimed at the control of fighting dogs like the pit bull terrier and Japanese tosa and their eventual elimination from this country. An import ban on these dogs took effect from midnight on 21 May.
  28
  trading. The recent decision of the House of Lords to adjourn its consideration of the appeal against the decision of the High Court in the cases of Stoke-on-Trent and Norwich city councils v. B&Q plc in order to seek further clarification of certain aspects of the law from the European Court of Justice has not caused us to alter this stance.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the available statistical information in the origin of asylum seekers and the change in pattern over recent months and years.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 7 June 1991]: Information for 1991 is only available for the number of principal applicants excluding dependants. The number of such applications by the main nationalities since 1988 is given in the table.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants from each Government Department are currently working in the office of the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Community.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of civil servants from each Government Department currently working in the office of the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Community at Brussels is:
  29

  Number

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  145

  Department of Trade and Industry

  6

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  5

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  2

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  2

  Department of Employment

  2

  Scottish Office

  1

  Overseas Development Administration

  1

  Department of Transport

  1

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  1

  Bank of England

  1

  1 including all support staff.

  Africa
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make it his policy to request the United Nations Secretary General to re-establish the office for emergency operations in Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The office for emergency operations in Africa provided excellent inter-agency co-ordination from 1984 to 1986. Since its experiences are reflected in current United Nations working practices, re-establishing it now does not automatically guarantee improved co-ordination. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the German Foreign Minister launched a joint initiative on 9 June to improve and support the way the United Nations responds to humanitarian disasters and emergencies including those in Africa.

  Libya
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his response to the recent proposals to the Foreign Secretary of Libya for the improvement of relations with the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to respond to these proposals. There is a wide gap between us and the Libyans over conditions that will allow for an improvement in relations.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding the frontiers of the European Community as far as it relates to Gibraltar.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Gibraltar is part of the Community by virtue of article 227(4). Gibraltar's frontier with Spain is therefore an internal EC frontier for all purposes except as regards free trade in goods where Community rules do not apply because Gibraltar is not part of the Community customs territory.

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what areas of interest he has in the future Hong Kong airport that are not matters for the Hong Kong Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British Government's interest in Hong Kong's new airport is to assist in doing everything possible to make it a success and thereby promote Hong Kong's stability and prosperity.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recommendations for camp conditions which(a) have and (b) have not been adopted for each of the camps in which Vietnamese boat people are currently detained.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: The UNHCR's recommendations on food, nutrition and water standards have been adopted, or in some cases exceeded, in all detention centres in Hong Kong. The recent influx of new arrivals has made UNHCR recommendations for toilet provisions and space standards difficult to achieve in all camps.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the statistics kept regarding the boat people detained in the camps in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: The Hong Kong Government maintain basic statistics on the total number of Vietnamese in the camps in Hong Kong, the number of men and women over 16 and the ages of those who are determined not to be refugees or who wait screening. Statistics that require further research and processing of information are not readily available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  Since its inception the Serious Fraud Office has brought 54 cases involving 123 defendants to trial, 85 of whom—over two thirds—were convicted. In 1990–91 the average duration between acceptance of a case for investigation by SFO and its committal or transfer to the Crown court was 11·8 months. I believe that we are making good progress in reducing the time taken to deal with such cases.

  Confessions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Attorney-General what weight the Crown prosecution service gives to uncorroborated confessions obtained in police custody.

  The Attorney-General
  The code for Crown prosecutors requires that the prosecution be satisfied that confession evidence has been properly obtained and has not been obtained by oppressive behaviour. A prosecution may be brought on the basis of an uncorroborated confession provided that the Crown prosecutor is satisfied that it was properly obtained and that there is a realistic prospect of a conviction.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of impending changes in the legal aid system on access to legal redress for patients in Wales who believe they have suffered through medical negligence.
  31
  The Attorney-General
  The safety net proposal which is canvassed in the Lord Chancellor's recent consultation paper on eligibility for civil legal aid would extend legal aid to those who may currently be ineligible but who face high costs. It could be of particular help to litigants in medical negligence cases in which costs may be high.

  Judge Pickles
  Mr. Rathhbone
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor has obtained a recording or a transcript of Judge Pickles' comments on the application of the law on a BBC TV programme on Tuesday 11 June; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has seen reports of the judge's comments. The judge is to retire at the end of the month and the Lord Chancellor therefore proposes to make no further comment.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Myanmar
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to increase overseas aid to Myanmar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  All aid to the Burmese Government was suspended in a joint decision by the EC Twelve following the repression of dissent in 1988. Other major donors acted similarly. We have no plans to resume aid until there is an improvement in the human rights position in Burma and significant movement towards democracy.

  Environmental Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between the Minister for Overseas Development and her European counterparts to tackle environmental pollution in central and eastern Europe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Ministers have held many discussions with EC colleagues on environmental improvement. We have already been able to help both through multilateral channels like the EC PHARE programme and the British know-how fund which has so far funded nine environment projects.

  Development Aid
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he envisages in the level or orientation of United Kingdom development aid in the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Planned expenditure on the aid programme is set out in the FCO departmental report Cmnd. 1502. In allocating our aid, increased attention is being given to supporting good government, including economic reform, alleviating poverty, protecting the environment, and population programmes.

  British Aid for the Kurds
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of mutual assistance between his Department and the voluntary organisation British aid for the Kurds.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British aid for the Kurds has been successful. The ODA has extended considerable help, including the provision of transport for relief goods which it has collected.

  Aid
  Mr. Hain
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the breakdown for the latest year for which figures are available of the proportion of overseas aid as a percentage of gross domestic product allocated to Africa, Asia, Latin America and the remaining areas of the world.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1989 the proportion of United Kingdom gross national product devoted to official development assistance was 0·31 per cent. There is no geographical breakdown for the destination of official development assistance. In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, the geographical distribution of gross public expenditure on aid including our contributions through multilateral agencies, was as follows: Africa 44 per cent.; Asia 31 per cent.; Latin America 4 per cent.; other 8 per cent.; unallocated 13 per cent.

  Medical Aid (The Gulf)
  Mr. Dalyell
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what medical aid has been given to combat typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and water-borne diseases in southern Iraq and Kuwait.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Nations agencies and the Red Cross and Red Crescent have begun health programmes in Iraq as well as in neighbouring countries. Britain has contributed US$16 million to the UN appeal for the region launched last month and £2·5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Liberian Refugees
  Sir David Steel
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are currently giving to Sierra Leone, in particular to help with the influx of Liberian refugees.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 12 June to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).

  Somaliland Republic
  Mr. Cartwright
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to provide humanitarian aid and assistance to the people in the area of the self-declared Somaliland republic.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not recognise the "Somaliland Republic". We want to help Somalis in need wherever they
  33
  are in the country, but insecurity hampers the relief effort. So far this year we have made available £2 million and 8,000 tonnes of food directly to Somalia.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  B. G. Adams

  Reconviction study.

  A. M. and T.

  ISS Ltd.

  Aims Ireland

  Strategic Studies. Implementation of SSADM.

  Airstream Finance

  Aircraft Sales Financing.

  G. Alexander

  Preparation of 30 maps for criminology society.

  Anderson Advertising Ltd

  NI Trade Directory.

  Aviation Business Consultants

  CEM. Aircraft Furnishing.

  W. S. Atkins Control Engineering

  Review of markets for solar heating devices. Support for HRM Project. Technical Advice on New Computer System—Roads Service.

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Delta Enfield Cables. Isocardia and Isomeria. Killyhevlin Hotel. Baronscourt Inn. Fort Lodge Hotel.

  Nigel Beacom

  Ballievey Bleaching.

  BIS Beacom International

  Catholic Family Care Society (NI).

  BIS Beacom

  Use of Oracle in NIO. Racal Chubb Feasibility Study.

  Drs. Bennets, Lowe and Kinsgman

  Technical appraisal of 3 DED/TBNI Science and Technology applications.

  S. Birley

  Networking by business support agencies in NI.

  Leslie Black

  Octopus Sportswear. Sperrin Metal Products. Maydown Precision. John Cleland.

  Clive Boot

  Perfecseal.

  Bradford Hospital Trusts

  HSS Trusts.

  Richard Brightwell

  Aims Ireland Ltd.

  British Ceramics Research

  Technical appraisal of tableware production.

  British Society of Criminology

  Donation towards criminology conference.

  Sandy Brown Associates

  Insurance companies relocation study follow up research.

  Alastair Browne

  International Leathers. Ballymena Construction. Glenbrook Foods.

  Burson Marsteller

  Business co-operation visit to Singapore arrangements. Consultancy mission to Pittsburgh.

  Business and Economic Initiative(s) Ltd

  Development of purchasing links with Irish Republic. Evaluation of Construction Board-managed JTP.

  Chris Byrne

  R. A. Irwin.

  CASPE Healthcare Knowledge Systems Ltd.

  Training in Medical Information Systems Coding Procedure.

  CCTA

  General advice and consultation relating to computer projects and methodology.

  CIPFA CSL Group Ltd.

  Management Accounting Advice for Roads Service.

  Advice in connection with the use of the new financial package in Roads Service.

  CM Computers

  Computerisation of PSTC Office Function.

  CSL NI

  To assist Rating Division to establish the changes required to meet the responsibility of Agency Accounting in the Rate Collection Agency.

  Frank Caddy

  Clarence Clothing.

  Brockhaven Ltd.

  Bespoke Shirt Co. Ltd.

  W. J. Cairns

  Landscape consultancy.

  Alastair Campbell

  R. A. Irwin.

  Dr. R. Campbell

  Infant Mortality Study.

  R. J. Campbell and Din Ghani

  MARI/DED awareness, targeting and tendering support on EC R and D programmes.

  34
  management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the contract was carried out.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total amount spent by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments in the financial year 1990–91 was £5,350,401. Due to way in which data are stored, it has not been possible to provide the "subject of assignment" details in respect of each consultancy beyond the name of the client company involved; to attempt to do so in every case would involve disproportionate cost.
  35

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Capita Muir Addy

  Financial System Strategy.

  Charging System.

  Superannuation Tender Evaluation.

  Community Schools Study.

  Dungannon Park Ltd.

  Pace Ltd.

  Belmont Photocopy.

  Moypark.

  Sak Marketing.

  Blackers Mill.

  Spence Bryson.

  Platform Ltd.

  Lismona Wear Ltd.

  David Clarke

  Unipork Ltd.

  Class Ltd.

  PRINCE Consultancy Services.

  David Clements

  Cantrell and Cochrane.

  Prof. M. Collins

  NIO survey review.

  Community Economic Ltd.

  Effectiveness audit of community technical aid.

  Component Supply System

  Component Sourcing Study.

  John Compton

  Elastic Berger (2).

  Adria.

  Avery Label.

  NI Spinners.

  Computer Search and Selection

  Consultancy on Oracle.

  Configurate D Computer Systems

  Development of EIS System.

  Mrs. M. Conroy

  Manpower Planning.

  Consultancy and Inspection Services Division, HMT

  Review of the top structure of:

  —Ulster Museum.

  —Ulster Folk and Transport Museum.

  —Ulster American Folk Park.

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  General Ledger Project.

  Financial Consultancy.

  Provide guidance on Formula Funding, based on experience of LEAs in England and Wales.

  Monitoring Northern Ireland Milk industry agreement.

  To assist with compilation of in-house departmental bids in respect of grounds maintenance at Crawfordsburn and Castle Archdale County Parks.

  Advice on the finance functions of the Water Service.

  Audit of market testing exercise—Works Service Reprographic Unit.

  To examine for Transport Division, the ferry service currently operating between Ballycastle and Rathlin Island .

  Study of IT Training Provision.

  Review of NIE performance aim targets.

  Research Salary Costs in Northern Ireland.

  Boxmore Plastics.

  Ballymena Constructions.

  Maydown Precision.

  Galen Ltd.

  Cordiner Windows.

  Dungannon Meats.

  Software Industry.

  Electronics Strategy.

  CSD Strategic Plan.

  Marketing Appraisal Texmo Ltd.

  Appraisal Clarence Clothing.

  James Mackie Ltd.

  McQuillan Meats.

  Condit and McCaul.

  Middletown Foods.

  Market Testing Feasibility Study.

  Markroyelle (Factories) Ltd.

  Cork Gully

  Personal bankruptcy.

  David Cowan

  BM.

  Double Glazing Supplies.

  I. Crow

  Paper on British Society of Criminology.

  DBE Associates

  To prepare an Information Systems Strategy for Roads Service.

  DBI Associates Ltd.

  Review of departmental IT strategy.

  David Andrea

  VS Automative Components Industry Study.

  J. Davis

  NI Dairy Industry.

  De Montfort Management Ltd.

  Japanese automative industry research study.

  36 37

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Digital Equipment Co. Ltd.

  Organisational development.

  Dimension Exhibition

  Water Office Exhibition.

  MBW Exhibition (Shankill).

  Angela Doggart

  Spanboard.

  J. W. Dunn

  NIADE Proposal.

  ECS (NI) Ltd.

  Technical and manufacturing of press brake project.

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Parents Advice Centre Assessment of suitability for using IT.

  A. Edwards

  Pay Negotiations.

  Ekono Cy

  Lees Pulpmill.

  Elite Consultancy

  Project Cost Monitoring System.

  Energy Contract Co. Ltd.

  Gas Adviser to DED

  Ernst and Young

  Computer Audit Needs.

  James Mackie.

  Platform Ltd.

  Keith Prowse.

  Superdine Ltd.

  Juiceco.

  Thrigge Scott.

  Silicom Systems.

  Blackers Mill.

  Munster Simms.

  Niex Ltd.

  McQuillan Meats.

  Clarence Clothing.

  Condit and McCaul.

  Elizabeth Alexander.

  Burrendale Hotel.

  Ewbank Preece

  Marketing investigation.

  Peter Ewing

  Sperrin Metal Products.

  Extern Organisation

  Self-reported delinquency study.

  Dr. B. Farrington

  Contractual advice for Roads Service.

  John Fielden Consultancy

  Review of University/Industry Links.

  First Management Business Consultants

  Circaprint Ltd.

  Flynn Moore

  Moy Central Manufacturing.

  Perfecseal.

  Dr. C. H. J. Fox

  Technical appraisal of 3 TBNI/DED Science and Technology applications.

  Prof. McVey

  Dr. N. A. Saunders

  Tom Fulford

  Phoenix Picture Frames Ltd.

  Graham Galbraith

  Silverlea.

  Patricia Gilleece

  SB Chemicals.

  R. Grills

  Texmaco.

  Stephen Gunning

  Blackers Mill.

  Halcrow Fox

  Belfast Cross Harbour Road and Rail Links Investment appraisal update.

  Hanna Thompson

  Concrete Flooring Systems.

  Michael Hanna

  Fruit of the Loom.

  CFD Advice.

  E. C. Harris

  Project management landscape advisory.

  Hedra Ltd.

  Market testing Bureau—general support.

  Hill, Vellacott and Bailey

  Slieve Donard Hotel.

  Stormont Hotel.

  FW Trees Hotel.

  S. M. Holt

  Glenbrook Foods.

  Robin Horner

  Double Glazing Supplies.

  Stephen Hughes

  Shergrim Ltd.

  Regency Marine.

  Diamond Sawmills.

  Peter Hyde

  Communications study for Works Service.

  ICL (UK) Ltd.

  Payroll.

  Girocheque Reconciliation Project.

  Industrial Society

  Management awareness.

  Input

  Software Strategy Research.

  Institute for Counselling and Personnel Development

  Evaluation of NI Council on Alcohol.

  Evaluation of Northland Centre, Londonderry.

  38 39

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Advice on appropriateness and adequacy of an analytical approach to the monitoring of equal opportunities in NICS.

  Investment Bank of Ireland

  Francis Dismore.

  Intersect Ltd.

  Oracle.

  MHM International.

  Software Ireland.

  D. C.Ives

  Webtech (NI) Ltd.

  Moypark Ltd.

  Lovell and Christmas.

  Farm Fed Chickens.

  Keith Jess

  Douglas and Graham.

  John Johnston Associates

  Heat exchange facilities and products.

  Kerman Associates

  NICS Telecoms Project.

  S. Kingon

  Maydown Precision.

  Kings Fund College, London

  Contracting for Health Authorities.

  R. Kinsella

  Sourcing of financial services.

  Helen Kirkpatrick

  SPD Swann.

  Vision.

  R. J. Hall.

  Kroll Associates

  C. S. Brooks.

  Kurt Salmon

  Cannontex—blouse costing analysis.

  LBMS Plc

  Selling PRINCE to senior managers.

  Tom Lenehan

  Spanboard.

  Lees Pulpmill.

  Lindsay Marketing

  Acheson and Glover.

  Concrete Flooring Systems.

  Liverpool Health Authority

  Quality of Service.

  Logical Choice

  Open Systems.

  Pickmigration.

  Donald McRitchie

  Presseast/Fleming Poultry.

  Wilsons Plastics.

  Report on Red Meat Sector.

  Kernohan Joinery.

  Financial appraisal of IFI Applications.

  Development of management ratios and analysis of Balmoral Credit Union Ltd.

  Examination of accounts and administrative systems of 12 Credit Unions.

  Michelin.

  F. P. McCormack & Co.

  Park Avenue Hotel.

  Wyncrest Guest House.

  Miscellaneous forward investment projects.

  G. Moss

  Technical appraisal of Fibre Laser Project (IFI).

  Institute of Advanced Micro Electronics.

  A. Moloney

  Harland & Wolff.

  Martin McBride

  International Leathers.

  James McGibbon

  Vision.

  SPD Swan.

  Kockum Computers.

  Rowenda Mills

  Wilson's Plastics.

  Stratter Plastics.

  Noel Moore

  BM.

  Perfecseal.

  Synthetic Industries.

  J. T. McCullins

  ETI Ltd.

  McClure Watters

  Kainos Software Ltd.

  Acheson & Glover.

  John McVeigh

  Software Ireland.

  Circuits and Systems.

  McCullough Research

  Sherwood Medical.

  Market Research (Scotland)

  Copeland Clothing.

  Market Solution (NI)

  HITEC Hydraulic.

  Laser International.

  Wm Turkington & Sons.

  Francis Dinsmore.

  M. McAulay

  Attendance Centre Review.

  Moran Management Consultant

  Interpersonal Skills Training.

  Timothy Morris

  Job Satisfaction Survey.

  40 41

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  McDonnell Douglas Information Systems Ltd.

  Technical appraisal of Software Product.

  Les McKeown

  Sylvan Spawn/Safe.

  Belleek

  R. McClure

  Acheson & Glover.

  Michael Morrow

  MSO.

  National Economic Research Associates

  Economic Consultants for Privatisation of NIE.

  North West Marketing

  Local Sourcing Project.

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Job Evaluation Scheme for Senior Management Posts. Review of above.

  Richard Osborn

  Circuits and Systems.

  J. Owens

  Maydown Precision.

  Harland & Wolff/Kawasaki.

  Hyster.

  Oracle UK

  Use of 4K Generation Language.

  Assist in Quality Assurance of Completed Software Products for Work Service Management Accounting Information Systems (MAIS).

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

  Consultancy on Oracle.

  OSI Ltd.

  NICS Telecoms Project.

  Price Waterhouse

  GTS—Project Management, Quality Assurance and Technical Evaluation.

  Business Plan.

  Review of Funding for Belfast Law Centre.

  Review of Belfast Law Centre.

  Taxation.

  Entry into Management:

  —Junior Management Development Programme.

  —Graduate Attachment Programme.

  —Industrial Scholarship Scheme.

  Evaluation of Job Training Programme.

  Review Training Arrangements Springfield/Falls.

  YTP Development Programme—Review of Block Funding.

  Memo prepared in relation to Abbott Laboratories.

  Survey of Business Capital in Northern Ireland.

  Study of the Software and Related Service Market.

  Northern Ireland Software Market Survey.

  Superdine.

  Erne Eggs.

  Getty Connections.

  Taxation.

  Review of activities Lambeg Industrial Research.

  Unipork Limited Strategic Planning.

  Milk Marketing Board.

  Sterlitz Ltd. Business Plan.

  Strategic Planning Review for Plashapes Ltd.

  Peat Marwick McClintock

  Study of Revenue Generation from Sale of Statistics.

  Independent Grading Review of Principal Professional Post at National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland.

  Technical Advice new Computer Sytem—Roads Service.

  Back Office Study.

  Belmont Photocopy.

  Research Study for XRT (USA).

  Performance Evaluation of Industry Matters.

  Para Technology Ltd.

  Plastics and Composites Sectoral Review.

  PE International

  Plastic Customs Mouldings Research Study.

  Market Research on Thermo Plastics Custom Injection Moulding.

  PIEDA

  Angling Equipment Study.

  Paul Associates

  Travel Reservations Industry Study.

  Prospect Management

  Dungannon Meats.

  Safe Management.

  PM Consultants

  Unidare Engineering.

  PA Management Consultants

  Total Quality Management Project.

  PA Cambridge Economic Consultants

  BATs—Policy Evaluation.

  Dr. S. Port

  Work Design Compute r Study, Technical Computer Configurations—Roads Service.

  PA Consultancy Group

  HRM Advice.

  Project—Re-Agentisation.

  Geographical Information System for Roads Service.

  Professor K. Pease

  Multiple Victimisation and NI Research Report Addressing.

  42 43

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Criminology Seminar.

  Paric Place Training

  PRINCE:

  —Project Management.

  —Training and Consultancy.

  PI

  Oil Fuel Price Monitoring and Advice Monitoring and Advice on GSI.

  Tony Payne

  Diamond Sawmills.

  Stephen Prenter

  Clearway Disposals.

  Lionel Platteuw

  Bemac Engineering.

  Brendan Quinn

  Farm Fed Chickens.

  Quinn and Co

  Desmond & Sons W D Meats.

  Queen's University Belfast

  Review of Social Work in General Hospitals.

  Quadrangle Communications Ltd

  Catching the Tide—Feasibility Study—The Corporate Image of Northern Ireland.

  N. M. Rothchild & Sons

  Financial Consultants for Privatisation of NIE.

  D. Ritchie

  Financial appraisal of IFI Science and Technology Applications.

  Roy Roper

  Lucas Stability.

  Irlandus Circuits.

  Helen Roulston

  C&C.

  Silverlea.

  Romtel Pic

  G. C. McKeown.

  Kainos Ltd.

  David Rigby

  Moy Central Manufacturing.

  Linfield Group Ltd.

  Ballievey Ltd.

  A. Rushton

  Marketing Training.

  Richmond Consultants Ltd

  Communications Strategy.

  ROSPA

  Health and Safety.

  Richmond Fellowship

  General Management Feasibility Study.

  Rank Xerox (UK) Ltd

  Business Systems in the Government Purchasing System.

  Dr. B. Styne

  Promotion awareness and development of STAR programme.

  Strawberry Hill Communications

  Magazine Subscription Industry Study.

  Stoy Hayward

  Oracle.

  Financial, Production Human Resource and Marketing.

  Mivan Windows.

  Circaprint Ltd.

  Clearway Disposal Ltd.

  Elias Coleraine.

  SAC HITEC Ltd

  MHM International Ltd.

  System Source Ltd

  GP Computers.

  UNIX/XENIY and MS DOS.

  David Shaw

  Job Satisfaction Survey.

  Software Ireland Ltd

  Systems Integration Project.

  Softlab Ltd

  'CRAMM'.

  Computer Security.

  Risk Analysis Review.

  Scoll

  'CRAMM' Risk Analysis Review.

  Computer Security.

  Syntek Ltd

  Assistance with property comparables on VALCOM Project.

  Kevin Steele

  Harland & Wolff/Kawasaki.

  Satra Technology

  Maple Class.

  Touche Ross

  General Management for Accountants.

  Freight Cost Survey.

  NI Trade Directory.

  Distance Learning Video Programme.

  Howden Sirocco.

  POS (Europe)

  Short Bros Aerospace Projects

  Lummus Mackie Ltd Monitoring Assignments.

  NI Calibration Survey.

  Guest Lodge Hotel

  Mourne Country Hotel.

  Fenaghy House

  Reporting Accountants of NIE Privatisation.

  David Thelwall

  Sylvan Spawn/Safe.

  Ulster Fanners.

  TMS Partnership

  Down Shoes.

  44 45

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Time Consultancy Group

  Copeland Clothing Ltd.

  CEM Systems.

  TecnEcon

  Belfast Cross Harbour Road/Rail Links—Investment appraisal update.

  Eric Thompson

  Crepe Weavers.

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  HSS Trusts.

  J. S. Twomey

  Preliminary Health Promotion Assessment.

  University of Ulster

  Review of Guidelines for Registration and Inspections of Residential and Nursing Homes.

  Nurse Manpower Project.

  Garment and Textile Tech Association.

  Ulster Exhibitions

  MBW.

  Water Office Exhibition.

  MBW Local Sourcing Exhibition.

  Understanding and Solutions

  Custom Study of VCR Component Supply.

  UCL Northern Computing Ltd.

  Finance.

  D. Vincent

  Software Industry Federation.

  Witt Thornton

  General Management for Accountants.

  Portaferry Hotel.

  Pat Watson

  Belleek.

  A. Wright

  Development of Car Leasing Scheme.

  Colin Wilson

  Ballievey Bleaching.

  F. Wallace

  Exercise on Machine Components.

  Whitefield House

  Relationship between Young Offenders and Recidivism.

  Mrs. J. P. Wilson

  Infant Feeding Survey.

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government will enact legislation which would allow for replacement grants in respect of housing property.

  Mr. Needham
  The legislation to permit the introduction of a replacement grant is expected to be laid before Parliament in the spring of 1992 and to come into operation later that year.

  Schools (Advisory Services)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (I) what is the value in cash and percentage terms of moneys allocated to each education and library board in Northern Ireland which is retained by each board for expenditure on advisory services to schools;

  (2) whether moneys retained by each education and library board to fund advisory services is eligible to be distributed to schools, for governors to decide whether to use the money to purchase expert advisory services or for other educational purposes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated expenditure this year and the percentage which this represents of its total block grant allocation is as follows:

  £000

  Percentage

  Belfast

  1,328

  10·9

  Western

  1,623

  1·33

  North Eastern

  1,630

  1·14

  South Eastern

  1,542

  1·28

  Southern

  1,608

  1·14

  Finance for the boards' advisory services is an excepted item and is not available for distribution to schools.

  Weights and Measures
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on what representations he has received on the proposal to permit the 35 ml metric measure for the sale of spirits; and when he expects to lay orders on this matter.

  Mr. Needham
  I have received 13 replies to the Department of Economic Development's consultation paper. I am now considering those replies. No decision has yet been made on whether to implement the proposal nor on when any order on the matter would be laid.

  Tooth Decay
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in tabular form details of the average number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-old children in Northern Ireland in each health board area.

  Mr. Hanley
  The mean numbers of decayed, missing and filled teeth—DMFT—in 12-year-olds in Northern Ireland in 1989 were as follows:

  Health and Social Services Board

  DMFT

  Eastern

  3·2

  Northern

  2·9

  Southern

  2·8

  Western

  3·3

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the water supply in Northern Ireland is now fluoridated artifically; and what is his policy for ensuring the optimum level of fluoridation in the interests of securing better dental health.
  47
  Mr. Hanley
  Just under 1 per cent. of the population live in areas in which fluoride is added to the public water supply. Two major fluoridation schemes are under consideration by health and social services boards which are responsible for deciding if the water authority should be asked to increase local fluoride levels. These would cover some 43 per cent. of the population. Where fluoride is added to water supplies, the Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 requires that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied to customers shall be maintained at 1 mg per litre which is the optimum level for reducing dental caries.

  UDR Four
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will order a judicial inquiry into the case of the UDR four.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The power to consider any form of review of this case rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. At present he is examining the possibility of a reference to the Court of Appeal, under the terms of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980. While this is the position the question of a judicial inquiry does not arise.

  Ryan Park, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for that area of ground, at the rear of Ryan park in the borough of Castlereagh, which is no longer used for a sewage screening plant.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: The area of ground was formerly the site of a small sewage treatment works which was replaced by an underground sewage pumping station to serve Ryan park. The Department of the Environment is considering a recent approach from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to release a strip of the site to improve access to a play area.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland into which public pension scheme staff of the Fair Employment Commission contribute.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: The staff of the Fair Employment Commission are members of the principal civil service pension scheme.

  Membership of the scheme is not limited to civil servants; staff of a number of other public bodies are also members of the scheme. Membership of the scheme does not either confer or imply civil service status.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply of 4 June,Official Report, column 196, how many of the members of staff of the Fair Employment Commission referred to are in each category of employment.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: The information requested, as at 1 January 1991, is as follows:
  48

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Operational staff

  18

  19

  Support staff

  12

  8

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether it is the practice of his Department normally to disregard payments of criminal injuries compensation placed on trust for two years only; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will review his Department's requirement that victims in receipt of criminal injuries compensation payments placed on trust should be required to have their affairs managed for them by trustees with a view to making it discretionary;

  (3) if his Department will consider reviewing its rules governing payments made by trustees to victims in receipt of awards of criminal injuries compensation with a view to eliminating their present complicated and restrictive terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Compensation payments arising from a personal or criminal injury which are placed on trust are disregarded indefinitely in all the income-related benefits—income support, family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit. The nature and terms of a trust are wholly the responsibility of the injured person or other person acting on his or her behalf, after taking any appropriate legal advice. The existing rules enable payments to be made out of the trust in a wide range of circumstances without affecting the injured person's entitlement to benefit. These rules are kept under review, although there are no plans to change them at present.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to-date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Total expenditure was £25,477 in 1989–90; £75,778 in 1990–91; and £2,847 so far in 1991–92.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps have been taken to ensure that the implementation and administration procedures for disability working allowance will not be adversely affected as a result of the measures contained in the Child Support Bill.

  Mr. Scott
  The provisions contained in the Child Support Bill have been taken into account in developing the procedures for administration of disability working allowance and will not delay or adversely affect the start of the benefit in April 1992.

  Family Credit
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total value of spending on family credit since its introduction in 1988.

  Mr. Jack
  The total value of family credit expenditure in 1988–89, 1989–90 and l990–91—estimated outturn—is £1,303 million in cash terms and £1,394 million at 1990–91 prices.

  Allowances
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those allowances administered by his Department in regard to which applications are(a) fully dealt with by local offices in all but exceptional circumstances or when there is a formal appeal, (b) dealt with entirely by non-local offices on a national or regional basis and (c) dealt with through a mixture of local and national/regional means.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of social security benefits 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.

  Maintenance Settlements
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for ensuring that maintenance settlements are reviewed regularly and keep pace with the growing cost of bringing up children as they grow older.

  Mr. Jack
  The Child Support Bill, currently before the House, provides for a new system of maintenance for children. The new system will ensure consistency of decision making by the use of a standard formula to calculate child maintenance. This formula provides a means of updating the maintenance to be paid and there will be provision for regular reviews of all maintenance assessments to take account of changes in the circumstances of the absent parent or the parent with care.

  Social Security Applicants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy that social security applicants in any part of the country should be able to reach any part of his Department on the basis of a local call charge.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our current telecommunications policy is under review. No decision has been made about the introduction of local call rates for our customers.

  Information Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure by his Department's information divisions, including advertising and other paid publicity activities, staff and running costs, in the years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information on staff and running costs for 1988–89 is not available in the form requested, because the Department of Social Security was 50
  then part of the Department of Health and Social Security. Advertising and other paid publicity activities were run as a separate programme and can be costed; staff and running costs, however, were not separate and to obtain this figure would be at disporportionate cost:

  £

  1988–1989

  Publicity

  12,334,342

  1989–1990

  Publicity

  15,598,464

  Staff

  1,157,000

  Running costs

  70,000

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recycling
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what his Department is doing to encourage the use of recyclable materials by industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  Encouraging the greater use of recyclable and recycled materials by industry is an important element of the Government's programme to bring about higher recycling levels in the United Kingdom. A range of measures is being taken to this end, including the development of new industry standards to encourage the use of recyclable and recycled materials; providing financial assistance for the development and dissemination of recycled technology; and for the identification of new end-uses for recycled materials. My Department also favours using recycled products, wherever they are available of adequate quality and representing value for money. Major purchasers can by their behaviour encourage the development and stabilisation of markets for recycled products. We are also asking industry to come forward with its own proposals for using more secondary materials.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all the bodies concerned with recycling which he has met in the last year and the dates of those meetings.

  Mr. Leigh
  During the past year, Ministers have met with numerous bodies involved in recycling. Most recently, my right hon. Friend met members of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment on 7 May, and on 20 May my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs met some 30 organisations involved in the recovery and recycling of packaging materials.

  Departmental Video Purchases
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Leigh
  This information is not readily available and could not be collected except at disproportionate cost.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was
  51
  responsible for each of the past five years, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Leigh
  The readily available information about the public appointments for which my right hon. Friend is responsible is given in "Public Bodies 1990" and in "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department of Trade and Industry's total expenditure on entertainment was as follows:

  £'000

  1989–90

  377

  1990–91

  365

  1991–92

  56

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by region, the major investment projects attracted from overseas since 1983, together with the capital cost of each project, and the amount of grant offered.

  Mr. Leigh
  The tables list by region details of the major investment projects located in Great Britain since 1 January 1983 that have received grant under the regional selective assistance scheme or the revised regional development grants scheme towards the cost of the project. Information on major investment projects supported by the original regional development grants scheme is available only at disproportionate costs. All the projects listed have capital costs of £10 million or over. For projects supported by regional selective assistance, the table shows the amount of grant accepted by the company. For projects supported by regional development grant, the amount of assistance shown is the total amount paid to the company to date.

  Regional development grant II

  Major inward investments in Great Britain since November 1984

  Region and name of company

  Amount of regional development grant paid £000

  North-east

  Rohm & Haas (UK) Ltd.

  150

  NSK Bearings Europe Ltd.

  2,390

  IKEDA Hoover Ltd.

  1,526

  Swaddlers Ltd.

  666

  Komatsu UK Ltd.

  2,281

  North-west

  Nacanco Ltd.

  270

  News International Newspapers Ltd.

  3,610

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Ericsson Ltd.

  1,955

  Scotland

  Digital Equipment Scotland Ltd.

  3,769

  52

  Region and name of company

  Amount of regional development grant paid £'000

  Mitsubishi Electric (UK) Ltd.

  939

  NEC Semiconductors (UK) Ltd.

  1,000

  JVC Manufacturers UK Ltd.

  1,563

  Terex Equipment Ltd.

  444

  NCR (Manufacturers) Ltd.

  1,220

  Compaq Computer Ltd.

  6,556

  Philips Electronic & Associated Industries

  846

  Caledonian Paper plc

  4,260

  Isola Werke UK Ltd.

  1,688

  Wales

  Warwick International Ltd.

  720

  Kimberly-Clark Ltd.

  910

  Kawneer UK Ltd.

  817

  Continental Can Co. Ltd.

  1,519

  Star Micronics Manufacturers Ltd.

  1,114

  Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd.

  1,638

  Hoya Lens (UK) Ltd.

  230

  Optec D D (UK) Ltd.

  438

  Pirelli General plc

  1,730

  Shotton Paper Co. pic

  2,000

  Regional selective assistance

  Major inward investment in Great Britain since January 1983

  Region and name of company

  Amount of RSA accepted £000

  East Midlands

  Curver Consumer Products Ltd.

  1,500

  North-East

  Cookson Fukuda Ltd.

  650

  3M UK Holdings Plc.

  1,700

  Fujitsu Microelectronics Ltd.

  30,000

  Nissan Motor Manufacturers (UK) Ltd.

  14,400

  Sterling-Winthrop Group Ltd.

  3,382

  Swilynn Magnetic Industries Ltd.

  2,950

  Key-Tech (Europe) Ltd.

  1,200

  NSK Bearnings Europe Ltd.

  1,600

  Komatsu Ltd.

  1,200

  Black & Decker

  2,450

  NSK Bearings Europe Ltd.

  450

  Nissan Motor Manufacturers (UK) Ltd.

  35,000

  Tolaram Polymers Ltd.

  350

  North-West

  Vauxhall Motors Ltd.

  8,000

  James River Graphics Ltd.

  650

  Delco Electronics Overseas Corporation

  1,274

  Shell Chemicals UK Ltd.

  630

  Dista Products Ltd.

  12,500

  Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

  8,500

  International Bio-Synthetics Ltd.

  750

  Cerestar UK Ltd.

  2,322

  PPG Glass Fibres Ltd.

  7,780

  Philips & Du Pont Optical UK Ltd.

  3,100

  Kodak Ltd.

  2,000

  South-West

  Rank Xerox Ltd.

  600

  Texas Instruments Ltd.

  975

  West-Midlands

  Makita Electric Works (Japan)

  1,000

  Bruhl (UK) Ltd.

  3,250

  NEC Technologies (UK) Ltd.

  1,100

  NEC Technologies (UK) Ltd.

  6,846

  Goodyear Great Britain Ltd.

  980

  Peugeot Talbot Motor Co. Ltd.

  1,500

  Star Aluminium Co. Ltd.

  4,000

  Ricoh UK Products Ltd.

  900

  53

  Region and name of company

  Amount of RSA accepted £'000

  Yorkshire- Humberside

  Devalit UK Ltd.

  2,000

  Mars GB Ltd.

  2,400

  Wales

  Warwick International Ltd.

  700

  Warwick International Ltd.

  1,270

  Warner Lambert (UK) Ltd.

  2,200

  Vanol International Ltd.

  600

  Sun Valley Poultry Ltd.

  2,000

  Kronospan Ltd.

  914

  Kimberly-Clark Ltd.

  910

  Ford Motor Co.

  21,000

  Euro DPC Ltd.

  1,000

  Continental Can Co. Ltd.

  400

  Autophon (UK) Ltd.

  1,250

  Alfred Teves Ltd.

  2,000

  Alcoa Manuf (GB) Ltd.

  3,500

  Dynoplast Ltd.

  1,750

  Yuasa Battery (UK) Ltd.

  2,100

  Sony (UK) Ltd.

  4,800

  Sony (UK) Ltd.

  2,200

  Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd.

  2,000

  Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd.

  4,901

  Matsushita Electronic Components Ltd.

  1,000

  Matsushita Electric (UK) Ltd.

  2,062

  Diaplastics (UK) Ltd.

  750

  Ringshare Ltd.

  3,400

  Robert Bosch

  20,900

  Pirelli General Plc.

  1,225

  Heavy Vine Ltd.

  1,455

  British Alcan Aluminium PLc.

  4,000

  Scotland

  Motorola Ltd.

  34,000

  Caledonian Paper plc

  7,200

  Compaq Computer Manufacturers Ltd.

  4,800

  National Semiconductor (UK) Ltd.

  5,000

  IBM UK Ltd.

  2,000

  Conner Peripherals Inc.

  20,000

  Digital Equipment Co. Ltd.

  10,400

  NEC Semiconductors (UK) Ltd.

  500

  Sun Mirosystems Ltd.

  3,900

  Ciba-Geigy plc

  4,800

  Compaq Computer Manufacturers Ltd.

  2,825

  Digital Equipment Co. Ltd.

  1,166

  Terex Equipment Ltd.

  3,500

  Hughes Microelectronics Europa Ltd.

  7,688

  SEH Europe

  4,884

  IBM UK Ltd.

  800

  SCI UK Ltd.

  1,200

  Motorola Ltd.

  2,400

  Digital Equipment Co. Ltd.

  2,700

  Lasa Industries (UK) Ltd.

  2,000

  NCR (Manufacturers) Ltd.

  1,540

  OKI (UK) Ltd.

  1,655

  Hoover (1990) Ltd.

  4,500

  SCI UK Ltd.

  405

  Hewlett-Packard Ltd.

  1,440

  Rohm & Haas (UK) Ltd.

  2,400

  Compaq Computer Manufacturers Ltd.

  400

  Seiko Instruments UK Ltd.

  1,900

  SCI UK Ltd

  900

  Hewlett-Packard Ltd.

  4,000

  Roche Products Ltd.

  100

  Russell Corp UK Ltd.

  2,550

  Smith & McLaurin Ltd.

  855

  Kvaerner Govan Ltd.

  3,000

  Uniroyal Englebert Tyres Ltd.

  800

  W. L. Gore & Associates (UK) Ltd.

  1,630

  Forbo-Nairn Ltd.

  1,700

  Michelin Tyre plc

  1,750

  JVC Manufacturers UK Ltd.

  2,147

  Telephone Selling
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to the establishment of a register to combat the problem of unsolicited telephone selling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The branch systems general licence issued under the Telecommunications Act 1984 provides for the establishment of a register on which people who do not wish to receive unsolicited telephone sales calls can place their numbers. Once this register is in place, anyone who makes such a call to a number on the list will be in breach of the licence, and ultimately the Director General of Telecommunications can remove the right to operate under the licence from persistent offenders, making them unable to use their telephone systems. Oftel is discussing the arrangements for the register with interested parties and will issue a press notice as soon as the scheme is ready to be launched.

  Arab Boycott
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Arab boycott of United Kingdom companies trading with Israel.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Her Majesty's Government are opposed to and deplore all trade boycotts that lack international support and authority. It is not however our policy to interfere with the commercial decisions of British firms.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will set out in tabular form for each of the European Community countries, including the United Kingdom, such information as he has on their statutory provisions regarding compliance with the Arab trade boycott of Israel; and what action he intends to propose to harmonise legislation on this matter after 1992.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 June 1991]: The following table shows the legislative position of European Community countries as regards the Arab trade boycott of Israel.

  Country

  Statutory provisions

  Belgium

  None

  Denmark

  None

  Irish Republic

  None

  France

  1—

  Germany

  None

  Greece

  2—

  Italy

  None

  Luxembourg

  None

  Netherlands

  3—

  Portugal

  None

  Spain

  None

  United Kingdom

  None

  1 Article 31 (known as the "Krieg amendment") to Law No. 77574 of 7 June 1977 in effect made it illegal to comply with the boycott in France, although the article was couched in general terms. However, since this prevented French firms from trading with the Arab countries, an administrative instrument was introduced in 1981 which permits the anti-boycott legislation in effect to be ignored.

  2 Greek legislation is in support of the Arab boycott of Israel.

  3 Dutch legislation is a general law relating to all boycotts except those agreed by the Netherlands and organisations to which the Netherlands belongs and boycotts imposed solely on the grounds of

  55

  economic policy.

  Companies have to notify the Minister of Economic Affairs of requests made to them to apply a boycott. Annual reports to Parliament on the operation of the law are required.

  Vehicle Repairs and Servicing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will investigate the number of complaints of which trading standards offices are aware, regarding misleading claims on turn-around time made by garages over repairing, body repairs, or servicing of motor vehicles; and whether he will give particular attention to such complaints made on behalf of(a) women and (b) retired persons.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have consulted the relevant trading standards organisations on this question but they are not aware of any significant number of complaints about misleading claims on vehicle repair turn around times.

  NESL, Sunderland
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now publish in full the details of the agreement between the Government and the European Commission which resulted in the closure of North East Shipbuilders Ltd., Sunderland.

  Mr. Leigh
  It is not customary to publish exchanges between the Government and the European Commission which, as in this case, contain information of a commercially confidential nature.

  The essential details of the exchanges pertaining to the closure of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. and associated matters have however been made publicly available in the minutes of evidence taken before the Trade and Industry Select Committee in October 1989.

  Sequestration
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 283, if he will list any further assistance or representations received from individuals, organisations or political parties on the subject of personal sequestration in Scotland.

  Mr. Redwood
  The only representations my officials have received about personal sequestration in Scotland since my answer on 2 May have been from the Consumer Credit Association. This organisation was amongst those I listed previously and no other assistance or representations have been received since.

  European Coal and Steel Community
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the utility and the future of the European Coal and Steel Community.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 June 1991]: The Government would prefer the immediate termination of the European Coal and Steel Community, whereupon coal and steel would be governed by the EEC treaty in the same way as other industries. While disappointed that the European Commission does not share that view, we recognise the practical difficulties of attempting to achieve
  56
  immediate termination and can support the Commission's conclusion that the ECSC treaty should be allowed to expire on schedule in 2002, subject to a much less interventionist application of its provisions in the meantime. We were therefore pleased to note the Commission's view that a much less interventionist interpretation and application of the ECSC treaty is indeed necessary.

  BT Licence
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are contained in the British Telecom licence relating to protection of the rights of the present shareholders, and to protection of customers against an effective offshore-owned monopoly, in the event of relocation of BT's domicile overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 June 1991]: BT is subject to strong controls through its licence conditions, the regulatory powers exercised by OFTEL and general competition law. These apply irrespective of who the shareholders are and where the company's offices are located. The Government hold a special share in BT which protects certain provisions in the company's articles of association. These include a provision imposing a 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholdings.

SCOTLAND

  Arson
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of the report on arson made to him by St. Ventigerns Academy, Blackburn, he will consider a policy of residential janitors at major isolated educational sites.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Arrangements for the security of schools are matters for the education authorities in the light of local circumstances.

  Non-fossil Renewables
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made for instituting a non-fossil renewables obligation in the Scottish electricity supply industry; what duration it will have; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  None. The hon. Member is, however, referred to the parliamentary answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 15 May 1991, at columns 208–9.

  River Catchment Management
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has, in the light of the recommendations of the report of the Salmon Advisory Committee on factors affecting natural smolt production, to review and strengthen the structure of river catchment management in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: Comments on the report are being invited from a wide range of interests. The responses will be taken into account in our policies for the fisheries, water quality and ecology of river catchments in Scotland.

  Salmon
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will estimate the tonnage of illegal Atlantic salmon in the EC market from Norway; how many prosecutions have taken place; what action is being taken to prevent further illegalities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Norwegian Government to discuss the salmon industry; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what steps are being taken to monitor the impact of non-EC member countries exporting salmon to the EC market; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what plans he has to introduce a tariff on Norwegian salmon entering the EC market; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what steps have been taken to secure fair trading practices in the EC market regarding salmon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: In March this year, the European Commission closed its investigation of an anti-dumping case raised by the Scottish and Irish salmon producers. It did so on the basis of certain assurances from the Norwegian authorities aimed at stabilising the market for farmed salmon, including continuation of the Norwegian programme for freezing surplus production and for more rigorous enforcement of Norwegian regulations on salmon sales. The Commission also agreed to put in place arrangements for monitoring more closely imports of salmon to the European Community.

  Representatives of the Scottish Salmon Growers Association, with officials of the fisheries Departments, have since met the Commission to discuss allegations of breaches of these undertakings and the continued import of salmon at below the Norwegian buying-in price. The Scottish and Irish industries are collecting detailed evidence to support these claims, and officials of the fisheries Departments expect to discuss the implications with the Commission as soon as that evidence is submitted.

  The Commission is also expected to announce shortly, after consultation with the industry and member states, its measures to improve the collection of information on salmon imports by customs authorites of member states. This should provide a firmer basis for monitoring the EC market for salmon. At present, it is not possible to estimate the amounts of Norwegian salmon entering the EC market at prices below those set by the Norwegian authorities for buying-in surplus production.

ENERGY

  Hydrocarbon-related Research
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives he is taking to promote the United Kingdom's programme of hydrocarbon-related research.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department gives financial help to the offshore supplies industry for research and development in five key areas of technology. These are sub-sea production systems, advanced underwater engineering, drilling and production, exploration technology and reservoir technology.
  58
  Together with the Natural Environment Research Council, the Department has recently launched a Link programme in hydrocarbon reservoirs. My Department also sponsors a programme of research into enhanced oil recovery, in collaboration with the oil industry.

  Continental Shelf
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of direct employment on the United Kingdom continental shelf(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1990.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Direct employment increased by 65 per cent. to reach a new record level of 36,500 in 1990 compared with only 22,000 in 1980, the earliest year for which comparable figures are available.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many development projects were approved on the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1990; and what was the level of investment associated with them.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In 1990, 18 development projects were approved worth some £4·8 billion at 1990 prices.

  Electricity (Disconnections)
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest figures he has for the level of disconnection for debt for electricity supply.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Disconnections for nonpayment of bills in England and Wales are at the lowest figure since records began in 1976, when disconnections stood at more than double the present figures.

  In the year ended 31 March the total number of such disconnections stood at 51,637 or 0·27 per cent. of all domestic credit customers.

  Gas Pricing
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress the Director General of OFGAS has reported to him in adjusting the tariff for horticultural customers following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into gas pricing.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Industrial gas prices are set by British Gas in competition with other fuels and subject to normal competition law. Under its published price schedules British Gas is not permitted to discriminate against—or in favour of—any class of user.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Director General of OFGAS to discuss the mechanism for setting price levels for British Gas customers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I regularly meet the Director General of Ofgas and discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on the progress of the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Initial experience in operating the scheme has confirmed that it meets a real need and is being well received. But it has also shown that to benefit customers and energy efficiency, work must be closely monitored and controlled to maintain a high standard.
  59
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the(a) grants and (b) advice given to public sector householders in the parliamentary constituency of Southwark and Bermondsey by the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Such an analysis of grants paid could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Where other work is undertaken under the scheme, grants of up to £10 are available for the provision of basic energy advice covering such matters as the effective use off heating controls, avoidance of condensation, and practical ways in which the public can save energy.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any further plans for the insulation of buildings in order to conserve energy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The energy efficiency office is continuing to undertake a variety of programmes to promote energy efficiency in buildings, some of which were referred to in "This Common Inheritance".

  These include:
  the home energy efficiency scheme, which provides grants to low income householders for basic insulation measures;
  a new domestic campaign, with the Department of the Environment, to explain the link between energy use and its effect on the environment and to promote energy efficiency in the home;
  the best practice programme, which provides authoritative and impartial advice and information to building professionals and managers;
  promotion of energy efficiency in Government buildings, with the objective of reducing energy consumption by 15 per cent. over five years;
  a campaign, with the Department of Health, to achieve 15 per cent. savings over five years in the national health service in England;
  seminars with the Department of the Environment to promote energy efficiency to chief executives and leaders of local authorities;
  seminars, with the Department of Education and Esso, for head teachers and governors of schools.

  Solar Power
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives the Government are taking to promote research into the use of solar power generation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On 8 May I announced that the Government is to fund a £250,000 programme of research into the use of solar power for electricity production.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the average annual increase in energy consumption in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Between 1979 and 1990, the United Kingdom's gross domestic product increased by 24 per 60
  cent. During this period energy consumption on a heat supplied basis declined by 3·6 per cent. or 0·3 per cent. a year. This combination represents a substantial and welcome improvement in energy efficiency over the period.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives the Government are undertaking to promote the increased use of combined heat and power.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department's energy efficiency office promotes combined heat and power primarily through its best practice programme which provides targeted, independent advice to key participants in the energy market.

  Nuclear Energy (Employees)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of people employed in Britain's nuclear energy industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) earlier today.

  Coal Productivity
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much British Coal's productivity increased between(a) 1974 and 1979, (b) 1980 and 1984 and (c)

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Between 1973–74 and 1978–79 British Coal's productivity increased by 4·2 per cent., between 1979–80 and 1983–84 it increased by 5·2 per cent., and between 1984–85 and 1989–90 the increase was 107·7per cent.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Details of appointments for which I have been responsible are contained in the annual publication "Public Bodies", and "Women into Public Appointments". Both publications are available in the Library of the House. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 14 May 1991 at col.87. Further details on the trading bodies for which I am responsible are contained in their annual reports and accounts.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has no hospitality fund. However, expenditure on official hospitality in the years in question was as follows:
  61

  £

  1989–90

  46,000

  1990–91

  66,000

  11991–92

  3,000

  1 To date.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what approaches he has made to the European Commission concerning the application of favourable treatment for a renewables tranche within the non-fossil fuel obligation beyond 1998.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. However, I am confident that the regional electricity companies have the flexibilities they need to be able to offer generators acceptable contracts under the proposed 1991 Renewables Order.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department spent on advice on electricity privatisation in 1990–91; whether that sum includes the cost of the share information office; and if he will give details of any other expenditure incurred in 1990–91 in pursuit of electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Final figures for 1990–91 will be published in the Appropriation Account later this year. It is estimated that the Department spent £52·1 million on advice on electricity privatisation in 1990–91, an amount which does not include the cost of the share information office, and a further £204·4 million on other expenses, principally the setting up and operation of the receiving banks, the design, printing and distribution of the prospectuses together with various fees and commissions, marketing costs and stamp duty.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those companies still advising him on electricity privatisation, giving the topics on which they are advising him and the expected end date of their contracts.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The provision of advice remains necessary in a limited number of areas and in connection with the remaining elements of the sales, for example the instalment arrangements; the relevant contracts will be terminated at the appropriate time. The information relating to the contractors and topics concerned is:

  Adviser

  Topic

  Touche Ross

  Audit services

  Slaughter and May

  Legal

  Williams Lea

  Printing advice

  Wood Gundy

  Canadian financial

  Goldman Sachs

  United States financial

  Credit Suisse/First Boston

  European financial

  Nomura

  Japanese financial

  Osler Renault Ladner

  Canadian legal

  Davis Polk and Wardwell

  United States legal

  Anderson Mori and Rabinowitz

  Japanese legal

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the actions taken by the Government to increase opencast coal mining.
  62
  Mr. Wakeham
  We have taken no action intended to increase opencast coal mining. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) gave to the question from the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) today.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy on the future level of opencast mining activity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no Government target for opencast coal output. The future level of opencast mining activity will be determined by market demand and the acceptability to the planning authorities of proposals for new sites.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Supplies
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he issues to health authorities about their policy on paying suppliers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will review payment policy by health authorities to ensure suppliers are paid promptly and within the terms of their credit agreements.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service management executive has emphasised the need to pay suppliers within an acceptable period of time. It has sent a copy of the Department of Employment booklet, "Prompt Payment Please", a copy of which is available in the Library, to all English health authorities and has the expectation that health authorities will meet their obligations within a reasonable period of time in accordance with contractual requirements and responsible practice.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about late payment by health authorities to their suppliers, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the last year we have received around a dozen letters concerning late payment from hon. Members and members of the public.

  Childminders
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those local authorities which have waiting periods of six to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, 18 to 24 months, and over 24 months for registration of childminders;

  (2) what information is available on the average time being taken by local authority social services departments to approve registration of childminders.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Guidance issued in April by the Department* in connection with the Children Act 1989, which comes into force on 14 October, advises that local authorities should ensure that decisions on applications for registration by childminders are normally reached within three months of receipt of the application.
  *The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 2—Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority and by year for the last 10 years the number of cases of hepatitis B that have been diagnosed in the age groups(a) up to five years of age, (b) six to 15 years, (c) 16 to 30 years, (d) 31 to 60 years and (e) over 60 years; and if he will show in his answer what percentage this is of the population for each age group.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not readily available in the form requested, and could be obtained only at

  Laboratory Reports of Acute Hepatitis B 1980–1990 Inclusive

  Age

  1 to 4 years

  5 to 14 years

  15 to 24 years

  25 to 34 years

  35 to 44 years

  45 to 54 years

  55 to 64 years

  Over 65 years

  Adult

  Not known

  Total

  Regions

  East Anglia

  1

  0

  236

  126

  39

  25

  10

  7

  17

  5

  466

  Mersey

  2

  4

  341

  225

  75

  29

  17

  10

  8

  17

  728

  North East Thames

  5

  14

  238

  238

  97

  37

  33

  14

  22

  22

  720

  North West Thames

  2

  10

  444

  498

  168

  74

  41

  16

  47

  47

  1,347

  North Western

  1

  11

  650

  336

  131

  56

  35

  14

  26

  5

  1,265

  Northern

  2

  3

  149

  95

  43

  26

  19

  5

  10

  19

  371

  Oxford

  3

  2

  261

  153

  47

  31

  14

  8

  15

  9

  543

  South East Thames

  3

  3

  334

  318

  103

  60

  42

  14

  35

  44

  956

  South West Thames

  1

  14

  284

  209

  109

  55

  20

  18

  7

  26

  743

  South Western

  0

  2

  418

  251

  131

  65

  32

  15

  18

  12

  944

  Trent

  3

  8

  417

  231

  99

  44

  23

  23

  20

  18

  886

  West Midlands

  8

  24

  375

  333

  148

  88

  53

  36

  31

  41

  1,137

  Wessex

  3

  4

  218

  177

  93

  45

  30

  18

  7

  13

  608

  Yorkshire

  2

  12

  511

  299

  108

  97

  41

  13

  25

  26

  1,134

  Aids
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been commissioned by his Department into the incidence of or potential for occupational morbidity amongst professional health care staff involved in the care and treatment of people with HIV and AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No studies have been commissioned by the Department. However, since 1986 the communicable disease surveillance centre has been undertaking, through voluntary reporting, surveillance of accidental injuries in which health care workers are exposed to the blood or body fluids of patients who are infected with HIV. Additionally, routine surveillance of AIDS cases and laboratory reports of positive HIV antibody test include reported mode of transmission.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the full-time and part-time public apointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for a number of full and part-time public appointments. Details of each of these could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However information is available from the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations". Copies are available in the Library.64
  disproportionate cost. The table shows reports of acute hepatitis B to the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre for the years 1980 to 1990 inclusive by English health regions, and in the age groupings sought, as far as is possible. Comparison with populations would not produce a true incidence of hepatitis B because some cases are confirmed in laboratories outside the regions in which they occur. The number of reports of acute hepatitis B to the CDSC declined from 1,889 in 1984 to 526 in 1990.

  Trachoma Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority, and by year for the last 10 years, the number of cases of trachoma that have been diagnosed in the age groups(a) up to five years of age, (b) six to 15 years, (c) 16 to 30 years, (d) 30 to 60 years and (e) over 60 years; and if he will show in his answer what percentage this is of the population for each age group.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the number of cases of trachoma diagnosed each year is not held centrally. Approximately 10 cases a year are treated as in-patients in NHS hospitals in England.

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry 1979–1985

  Hospital Episode System 1987–88—1989–90.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the national health service trusts that have submitted acceptable business plans to his Department; and if he will show in his answer(a) the date they were received and, (b) the date they were agreed as acceptable.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The business plans are not approved as being acceptable but form the basis of a continuing discussion between the national health service management executive and individual trusts. The business plans are modified and updated during the year to incorporate the results of these discussions and to reflect changing circumstances.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which documents produced by the applicants for self-governing status for the Guy's and Lewisham trust he(a) commented on in writing and (b) directed any alterations of, prior to 1 April.
  65
  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Drugs and Pesticides
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions with the Board of Science of the British Medical Association on the collation of reports of suspicion of drugs or pesticide-presence to a central body within his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Consideration is being given to the possibility of establishing a card system whereby GPs would report any adverse reactions attributed to exposure to pesticides. This could include poisoning from residues in food.

  We are also considering supporting research into the possibility of a causal link between very small pesticide residues in food and specific cases of human ill-health. So far no such research has been devised.

  The surveillance of food for pesticide residues is carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with guidance from the Department on public health aspects.

  Private Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 2 May,Official Report, column 275, on NHS and private beds, if he will now provide a full answer to the hon. Member's question.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I replied to the hon. Member on 13 June 1991.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the £81 million made available to bring about a reduction in outstanding creditor levels was divided between regional health authorities; and how much was received by each regional health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The allocation made to regions was broadly pro rata to the total of their districts' estimated excess creditors at 31 March 1989. The amount allocated by region is as follows:

  Region

  Allocation £ million

  Northern

  1·2

  Yorkshire

  1·9

  Trent

  3·9

  East Anglian

  1·7

  North West Thames

  21·1

  North East Thames

  18·1

  South East Thames

  14·8

  South West Thames

  4·5

  Wessex

  3·3

  Oxford

  0·3

  West Midlands

  3·6

  Mersey

  0·9

  North Western

  2·3

  Special health authorities

  3·3

  Total

  81·0

  Column does not sum due to rounding.

  Registered Homes Act 1984
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what duties proprietors of homes registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 have to maintain and file accounts of income and expenditure for each resident.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Proprietors of residential care homes are required by regulations made under the Registered Homes Act 1984 to keep records of money and valuables deposited with them by residents, or received on their behalf. A record of the return of money or valuables and of the use made of them must also be kept.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names and occupations of the members of the panel of experts set up under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The list shows the names and occupations of members of the panel of experts, who are appointed by the Lord President of the Council, to enable registered homes tribunals to hear appeals under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Expert panel for residential care homes tribunal

  R. Bessell—Managing Director of Retirement Security Ltd. and former Director of Social Services.

  D. Browne—Retired Assistant Director of Social Services.

  M. Burrell—Retired rest home proprietor.

  W. J. C. Churchill—Executive Secretary, Association for Residential Care.

  K. Coleman—Assistant Director of Social Services.

  G. S. Dunn—Retired Consultant for the Leonard Cheshire Foundation and Director of Social Services.

  F. G. Edwards—Residential Care Home Proprietor.

  J. B. Fisher—Proprietor/Manager Residential Home for Adults with Mental Handicap.

  B. Garner—Director Mental After Care Association.

  Mrs. L. Gladwin—Social Work Consultant.

  Dr. Barbara J. Gray—Retired staff tutor in social studies.

  J. Hanson OBE—Retired Director of Social Services.

  G. Harper—Divisional Director, Social Services Department.

  R. Humphries—Freelance Social Services Consultant, former Director of Social Services.

  D. C. James—Retired Director of Social Services.

  M. S. Jobbins—Senior Principal.

  Miss M. G. Joynson OBE—Retired Senior Director of Dr. Barnados

  Miss S. Matheson—Area Manager MENCAP Homes Foundation.

  Miss S. A. Poupard—Retired Deputy Director of Social Services

  J. Regan—Retired head of Home and Trustee of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation.

  Miss J. Reynolds—Hospital Manager for people with a mental handicap.

  J. I. Stephens—Retired Assistant Director of Social Services.

  P. Tyndall—Co-ordinator, Cardiff University Social Services.

  D. Wakefield—Retired Director of Social Services.

  Mrs. J. J. Waldron—Head of Inspection Unit.

  P. L. Watts—Independent Consultant to providers of health and social care services.

  Miss K. Wells—Retired from British Red Cross and former Deputy Director of Social Services.

  K. J. White—Director of Residential Community.

  Miss M. O. Woodier—Freelance Consultant in Residential Care.

  Expert panel for nursing home tribunals

  Dr. A. K. Admani—Consultant Physician.

  Dr. A. K. Banerjee—Consultant Physician and Honorary Lecturer Geriatric Medicine, Manchester University.

  Dr. J. R. Cox—Consultant Physician.

  Dr. G. H. Hall—Consultant Physician.

  Dr. M. Hildick-Smith—Consultant in Geriatic Medicine.

  67

  Dr. G. A. Jones-Davis—Consultant in Public Health Medicine.

  Dr. D. L. Kerr—Retired General Practitioner, County Councillor.

  Dr. S. M. McDougall—Consultant in Public Health Medicine.

  Mr. R. T. Marcus—Consultant Surgeon.

  Mr. B. A. Maurice—Retired Consultant Surgeon.

  Dr. N. Merali—General Practitioner, Hospital Practitioner (Geriatric) Nursing Home Owner.

  Dr. P. Tiplady—District Medical Officer.

  Mrs. S. M. D. Adams—Nursing Home Registration/ Monitoring Officer.

  Mrs. C. Alford—Nursing Home Proprietor, Company Director.

  Mr. K. Dainty—Chief Inspector/Registration Officer for Nursing Homes.

  Mrs. R. Doidge—Director Nursing Services (Community).

  Mrs. T. Galletly—Partner in Nursing Home.

  Miss P. Jenkins—Registration Officer/Senior Nurse.

  Mrs. N. Kelly—Matron and Deputy House Governor.

  Mrs. H. M. McGregor—Partner/Manager Private Nursing Home.

  Mr. J. W. Sharp—Director Quality Assurance and Regional Manager.

  Mrs. M. Wilson—Director of Nursing Services.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued about action general practitioners should take if they come across neglect or abuse in a home registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  GPs should bring any apparent evidence of neglect or abuse of a resident to the attention of the registration authority.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is a procedure for the courts to inform a registration authority when a registered proprietor or member of staff of a home registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 is convicted of a criminal offence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the recently agreed arrangements for the disclosure of criminal records to registration authorities, if a police force becomes aware

  South-East Thames and South-West

  Thames Numbers waiting for in-patient treatment waiting between one and two years and more than two years at March 1990 and September 1990

  Total waiting

  Total waiting

  12 to 23 months at:

  24+ months at:

  Health authority

  31 March 1990

  30 September 1990

  31 March 1990

  30 September 1990

  South-East Thames Regional Health Authority

  9,343

  9,987

  8,773

  7,829

  Bexley

  395

  514

  158

  212

  Greenwich

  423

  408

  316

  302

  Bromley

  291

  237

  207

  72

  West Lambeth

  433

  803

  1,883

  1,728

  Camberwell

  314

  442

  208

  211

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  1,548

  1,284

  1,430

  1,196

  South-West Thames Regional Health Authority

  8,391

  8,017

  4,732

  4,242

  Croydon

  550

  509

  152

  133

  Kingston and Esher

  1,261

  1,151

  812

  797

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  420

  459

  213

  275

  Wandsworth

  462

  349

  184

  41

  Merton and Sutton

  449

  531

  70

  70

  68
  that the owner or manager of a home has acquired a conviction likely to be of interest to the registration authority, the force will pass that information on.

  Doctor Diagnosis
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to establish the impact on confidence in doctor diagnosis by patients, and take-up of preventive screening and immunisation of public awareness of the introduction of financial reward to general practitioners in meeting targets.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. We have seen nothing to suggest that awareness of the target payments scheme for cervical cytology and childhood immunisation has affected patient confidence in doctors' clinical diagnosis.

  The scheme has been most successful in increasing uptake rates for these services, thereby helping to eliminate avoidable illness. GPs are to be congratulated on their efforts in this area.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of patients who were waiting(a) one to two years and (b) over two years for hospital treatment at 31 March 1991 and 31 March 1990 for the south-west Thames and south-east Thames regional authorities and for each of their London districts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Information on numbers waiting for in-patient treatment as at March 1990 and at September 1990, the latest available information, is given in the table. Full details of waiting lists as at 31 March 1991 will not be available until September 1991.

  In the 12 months to September 1990 the total number waiting more than a year for in-patient treatment fell by 6 per cent. in south-east Thames region and by 13 per cent. in south-west Thames region as a whole.

  This information is on a "provider" basis and does not relate to the districts' resident population.

WALES

  Dog Attacks
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the approximate cost to the national health service for treating dog-related attacks in Wales; what were the corresponding figures for 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of changes in the method of covering doctors in respect of possible medical negligence claims on(a) the doctors in Wales, (b) their practice or unit, (c) their health authority or family practitioner authority and (d) on patients who might be affected.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The changes in arrangements for covering the costs of medical negligence litigation to which the hon. Gentleman refers relate only to doctors working in the hospital and community health services (H and CHS). General medical practitioners continue to be responsible for arranging their own insurance cover via the medical defence organisations (MDOs).

  The new arrangements should have no effect upon doctors in the hospital and community health services since the insurance premix which were previously paid on their behalf were paid for by their employer authorities. We are currently collecting data for the first year of these new arrangements in order to assess the effect upon health authorities. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when this is available.

  There is no reason why patients should be affected.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the level of fees paid to medical experts in respect of evidence provided for medical negligence claims; and what assistance is available from within the national health service for anyone making or contemplating such a claim in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The fees paid to medical experts in respect of evidence provided in medical negligence cases reflect the amount and complexity of the work done and the amount of time which is involved. Typical fees that have been paid for expert reports range from £50 to £195 while experts who have attended Court to give evidence have recently charged between £50 and £600 per day. These figures are based on a random sample of current files.

  A patient who is contemplating making a claim on the grounds of medical negligence may seek advice at an early stage from a community health council but if he wishes to pursue a claim it is usually essential that he should then have his own independent legal advice in view of the adversarial nature of the procedure.

  Where a patient shows that he is likely to pursue a claim, it is the policy of the health authorities to disclose medical records voluntarily. To this extent they assist the patient as he is not then obliged to institute proceedings before he can gain access to his medical records. Finally,
  70
  where a patient pursues a claim, he will rely upon the evidence of medical experts who in all probability are employed within the NHS.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what compensation was paid out to patients in each health authority area in Wales in each of the last five years(a) as a result of court action regarding allegations of medical negligence and (b) through payments made prior to a case coming to court; and what was the total financial cost to each authority in each of those years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the financial cost falling on each health authority in Wales in each of the last five years in respect of medical negligence claims was paid out in(a) defence legal costs, (b) legal costs awarded to patients or complainants, (c) fees in respect of medical evidence for complainants and (d) awards to successful patients or complainants.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has undertaken with health authorities and family practitioner authorities in Wales and with organisations representing medical practitioners in hospitals and in general practice regarding the present system for dealing with claims for compensation to patients or their families; what advice he was offered; and what options for improving the situation he is now considering.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The present arrangements were discussed with district health authorities in Wales in advance of implementation. General practitioners continue to be responsible for arranging their own cover via the medical defence organisations.

  The Government believe that the best way to improve the compensation system is to streamline and simplify litigation procedures. We are presently considering the feasibility of an arbitration scheme within the NHS to resolve claims for medical negligence more simply and more quickly.

  Guardians ad Litem
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names, and, if they are employed, the employment of all the present members of the guardians ad litem and reporting officers panels in the local authority areas of (i) Dyfed and (ii) West Glamorgan.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  Housing Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what policy considerations governed the choice of Aldbourne Associates for the main housing consultancy contract referred in his parliamentary replies of 23 May,Official Report, column 571, and 6 June, Official Report, column 311;
  71
  (2) pursuant to his parliamentary replies of 23 May, Official Report, column 511, and 6 June, Official Report, column 311, how Aldbourne Associates Ltd. was chosen for the housing consultancy contract.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The decision was taken by reference to relevant experience and expertise, the housing management consultancy pool then available, and the expected needs of the priority estates project programme in Wales.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority concerning the costs and benefits of its new staff booklet entitled "Total Quality/Making it Even Better"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We have had no specific consultations concerning the costs and benefits of South Glamorgan's total quality strategy. However the authority's strategy is in line with the all-Wales quality strategy, "A Quality Health Service for Wales".

  My right hon. Friend was pleased to endorse South Glamorgan's strategy by saying,
  "I want the process of creating a better NHS, aiming for even higher standards of care and serving all its patients efficiently, to begin now."

  Health Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on the basis of financial allocations to health authorities for 1991–92, how much extra(a) West Glamorgan, (b) Clwyd, (c) Gwent, (d) Gwynedd and (e) Pembrokeshire would have received if they were allocated their full formula share.

  Revenue allocations of 1991–92 prices

  £000s

  Year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Clwyd

  161·035

  163·092

  165·126

  167·066

  169·023

  170·999

  172·992

  175·004

  175·795

  176·589

  East Dyfed

  107·530

  107·530

  107·530

  107·578

  107·628

  106·678

  107·728

  107·780

  108·267

  108·756

  Gwent

  177·167

  178·105

  179·160

  180·661

  182·175

  182·703

  185·245

  186·802

  187·646

  188·494

  Gwynedd

  97·404

  99·122

  100·775

  102·175

  103·587

  105·013

  106·451

  107·903

  108·390

  108·880

  Mid Glamorgan

  228·062

  228·062

  228·062

  229·250

  230·450

  231·661

  232·883

  234·117

  235·175

  236·237

  Pembrokeshire

  43·900

  44·427

  44·951

  45·463

  45·981

  46·502

  47·029

  47·561

  47·766

  47·992

  Powys

  56·669

  56·669

  56·669

  55·555

  54·432

  53·299

  52·155

  51·002

  51·232

  51·464

  South Glamorgan

  166·814

  166·814

  166·814

  165·645

  164·467

  163·279

  162·080

  160·871

  161·598

  162·528

  West Glamorgan

  152·904

  152·904

  152·904

  153·913

  153·932

  155·960

  156·997

  158·045

  158·758

  159·476

  I should emphasise again that these are provided for planning purposes only and assume a 0·5 per cent. per annum real terms growth in line with the resource planning assumption previously issued to DHAs.

  The table includes capital charges. In 1991–92 capital charges have been allocated to authorities, as purchasers, in line with their need to pay capital charges as part of the cost of obtaining services. From next year capital charges will be redistributed as part of the total revenue resource in the move towards reaching formula shares, and no distinction has therefore been made in the table between revenue and capital charges other than to exclude capital charges from the base from which the 0–5 per cent. growth was calculated. To exclude capital charges as asked would therefore be misleading.

  Any comparison of the 1991–92 and subsequent allocations (with or without capital charges included)
  72
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  On the basis of the allocations announced in the Official Report on 21 March at columns 178–79, the increase would be as follows if the health authorities were funded in line with their weighted capitation formula shares.

  £ million

  West Glamorgan

  2·200

  Clwyd

  5·664

  Gwent

  1·996

  Gwynedd

  5·374

  Pembrokeshire

  0·840

  Note: These figures have been calculated by redistributing revenue resources exclusive of capital charges in line with revenue formula shares. Capital charges were then added back in (according to authorities' liability as purchasers to meet the cost of capital charges in contracts in 1991–92) in the same way as in the actual 1991–92 allocations.

  Weighted capitation will however be phased in over a period of years, being completed by 1998–99, in order to allow authorities time to adjust to their prospective capitation shares.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones),Official Report, 21 March, columns 178–79, taking actual financial allocations for 1991–92 as the base, what for the published table would be the financial change in revenue resources for each health authority in each year to 2000–01; what these figures would be without capital charges added back in; and how, without capital charges added back in, would they relate to 1990–91 base figures.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The effect of the annual change in revenue resources shown in the table in my reply is as follows:

  would be inappropriate as in 1990–91 authorities were funded as the providers of services—whereas from 1991–92 they (and GP fund holders) will be funded as purchasers of services.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the £143·6 million capital charges are attributable to each of the district health authorities; and whether this sum is included in the figure of £1,719 million given in the Official Report, 29 April, column 3.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following table shows the breakdown of estimated capital charges by the district health authorities in which the units and hospitals to which the charges are attributable are located.
  73

  District health authority

  Capital charges (£ million)

  Clwyd

  15·177

  East Dyfed

  18·664

  Gwent

  19·581

  Gwynedd

  9·789

  Mid Glamorgan

  25·204

  Pembrokeshire

  3·076

  Powys

  4·199

  South Glamorgan

  26·850

  West Glamorgan

  20·725

  Total

  143·265

  Note

  The figure of £143·265 million reflects revision to the estimates following the original estimate of £143·582 million.

  Capital charges are payable to the Department by hospitals and units in respect of the assets they manage. The cost of capital charges is recovered in the charges made for the services they provide to purchasers—health authorities and GP fund holders. Health authorities and GP fund holders are funded to pay the extra cost of capital charges—over and above the other costs of services—by the Department recycling the receipts from capital charges to them. To maintain neutrality this year capital charge receipts have been recycled to purchasers in line with the extra costs. In future receipts will be recycled in line with revenue formula shares, encouraging authorities to purchase services from hospitals that use their capital efficiently and so are able to offer a higher level of patient services than less efficient providers.

  The introduction of capital charging has no overall effect on public expenditure. The £143·265 million shown in the table has been deducted from provider units and reallocated to purchasers as described above. Account has been taken of the net cross border flows with England, and Welsh purchasers have additionally been funded for the capital charges, as well as the other costs of obtaining services in England. The adjustment for these cross-boundary flows was not included in my reply.

  Health Service Consultants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 506, how many new consultants have been appointed overall to work at the three treatment centres since they became operational.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A total of 4·5 whole-time equivalent consultants have been appointed as a result of the establishment of the three treatment centres.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what local newspapers he proposes to advertise the Cardiff Bay Barrage hybrid Bill.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: At present I propose to advertise the Bill in the South Wales Echo and the Western Mail.

EMPLOYMENT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not readily available and could not be assembled without disproportionate cost.

  Public bodies sponsored by the Employment Department are listed in Cabinet Office's publication "Public Bodies 1990". Details of public appointments made by this department are given in the Women's National Commission's "A Handbook for Women's Organisations". Both publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of job vacancies at job centres in the Tooting constituency on 1 June.

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

  Employment Service (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the performance targets for the Employment Service last year; and what they are for the current year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The performance targets for the Employment Service are set out in the annual performance agreement. Copies of the 1990–91 and 1991–92 agreements are available to Members in the Library of the House.

  Maternity Pay
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 622, whether the estimate quoted for implementing the pay provisions of the protection of pregnant women at work draft directive excluded or included the current statutory maternity payments; and on what assumptions the figure is based.

  Mr. Forth
  The estimate excludes the current statutory maternity payments, which stand at approximately £400 million a year. The main assumptions underlying the gross estimate of the cost of implementing the draft directive are that 370,000 employees become pregnant each year and that their average weekly earnings are £177 a week.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) men and (b) women registered as unemployed in the London borough of Wandsworth on 1 June.
  75
  Mr. Jackson
  On the latest unemployment count date of 9 May 1991 there were 9,295 male and 3,584 female unemployed claimants in the London borough of Wandsworth on the unadjusted basis.

  Schools Career Service
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the steps he intends to take to improve further the schools career service.

  Mr. Jackson
  The White Paper, "Education and Training for the 21st Century" (CM 1536), announces plans for the future of the careers service to enhance the quality of careers education and guidance. These plans include the provision of additional money to support further in-service training for careers service staff, and the extension of careers libraries and computerised information for schools and colleges.

  EC Initiatives
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what consultation has taken place with prospective applicant bodies in the preparation of the United Kingdom operational programme for the now initiative; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultation has taken place with prospective applicant bodies in the preparation of the United Kingdom operational programme for the horizon programme; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what consultation has taken place with prospective applicant bodies in the preparation of the United Kingdom operational programme for the Euroform initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Formal consultation will begin shortly. The European Commission supplied the relevant financial information only in mid-April, four months after the initiative was announced. The Commission has therefore extended its original 30 June deadline for the submission by the member states of the required operational programme.

  Employment Service
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he proposes to announce any future decisions to set aside performance targets for the Employment Service agency.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to set aside any of the performance targets which he agreed with the chief executive of the Employment Service. Should circumstances arise which caused him to do so he would inform the House and lodge an appropriate amendment to the ES annual performance agreement in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Civilian Contracts
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian contracts have been undertaken by the Royal Navy, with respect to Millbury docks in Plymouth,76
  and the Army, with respect to the transportation of heavy gear from Penzance to St. Mary's for an island runway project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service periodically undertakes work at Millbay docks, Plymouth at the specific request of Associated British Ports. The Army has undertaken one commitment on repayment for the transportation of heavy gear from Penzance to St. Mary's.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has given to the armed forces with regard to bidding for civilian contracts.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are standing instructions governing the scope of repayment activity and the basis on which it may be conducted. These reflect the principle that the public sector should not, as a general rule, take on activities which can equally well or better be undertaken by the private sector. Under the new management strategy budget holders are encouraged to increase their receipts, for example by making use of temporary spare capacity, within the framework of current policy on repayment activity.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian contracts the British Army has submitted in each of the last five years: how many such contracts have been awarded to the Army; if he will list each such awarded contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not MOD policy to seek such business.

  Gulf Trust
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 226, if he will specify which benevolent funds have received money from the Gulf trust; how much has been allocated to each; and if any advice or suggestions have been offered to these organisations about ways of distributing the money.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Donations to the Gulf Trust are being passed to the three service benevolent funds—The King George's Fund for Sailors, the Army Benevolent Fund and the RAF Benevolent Fund. They will use this money to meet cases of need arising from the Gulf conflict in accordance with their established practices, and within the terms of their trust deeds and charity law.

  William Douglas-Home
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given by his Department into the case and court-martial of William Douglas-Home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The hon. William Douglas-Home's case has been considered by the Department and a decision communicated to him.

  Royal Artillery
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the relocation of the Royal Artillery from Woolwich; and when he expects to announce a decision.
  77
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A comprehensive review of the Army's training base is being undertaken as part of the work on "Options for Change." No decisions have yet been taken on the future of units at Woolwich. Announcements will be made as soon as possible.

  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on whether to go ahead with a programme to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) on 20 May at column 391 to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed).

  Fiji
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military aid and assistance has been given to Fiji since the military coup.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some two to three Fijian officers attend military training courses in the United Kingdom each year. Surplus exercise stores, stockpiled in Fiji prior to 1987, were gifted to the Fijian armed forces in 1989. In addition, the Royal Navy officer has provided a loan service officer to the Fiji hydrographic unit for some 11 years.

  HMS Endurance
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of keeping HMS Endurance on station in the south Atlantic for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The costs of keeping HMS Endurance on station in the south Atlantic are not kept separately, but form part of her annual running costs. For these, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 March to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) at columns 718–19.

  Injured Grenadiers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consult his Canadian counterpart about the circumstances which led to the injuries suffered in July 1989 by Guardsmen Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is continuing contact with the Canadian authorities. If any additional information on the case is required it can be obtained through normal channels.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many letters to date have been received by his Department from the solicitors acting for Guardsmen Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  To date my Department has received nine letters from the solicitors previously acting on behalf of the guardsmen and two from their current solicitors.
  78
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances his Department would be willing to reconsider the decision not to pay any compensation to Guardsmen Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The decision will be reconsidered if it can be shown that the Ministry of Defence is legally liable.

  Mr. Hicks is in receipt of tax-free, index-linked pensions and other benefits amounting to £8,984 per annum. Guardsmen Povey and Ray will also be eligible for pensions and benefits if they are discharged from the Army on medical grounds.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if would be willing to meet Guardsmen Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray, together with their hon. Members of Parliament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Secretary of State for Defence has no plans to do so.

  Maritime Exercises
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are being made to the scale, timing, location and scenario of major maritime exercises as a result of changes in the perceived threat to United Kingdom security interests.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future scope, scale and frequency of major maritime exercises are currently under review in the light of the changed security situation in Europe.

  Type 2075 Sonar
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contract with Ferranti-Thomson for development of the type 2075 sonar.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Royal Navy's sonar requirements are being rationalised in line with the "Options for Change" decisions on the size and structure of the future submarine fleet. Against this background, I have decided not to proceed with the development of Sonar 2075, which had been intended for a future buy of Upholder class submarines, and the contract with Ferranti Thomson Sonar Systems Ltd. was terminated from 20 May 1991. The company have, however, successfully tendered for the competitive project definition phase for Sonar 2076 which is intended to form the basis of future submarine sonar programmes.

  HMS Upholder
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects HMS Upholder to be placed in dock for rectification of weapon handling system defects; and what is the expected cost of the rectification work.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We plan to start the rectification work on HMS Upholder later this year and complete it in 1992. The cost of the work has not yet been established, as we are currently evaluating tenders. In any case, it is not our practice to disclose commercially confidential information of this nature.

  HMS Endurance
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration he has given to the deployment of HMS Endurance in the south Atlantic after her present tour of duty is over.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future programme of Endurance is under consideration, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Central TV (Libel Action)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what public funds or other assistance is being given to Messrs. MacKenzie Geidt and de Normann in their libel action against Central Television.
  80
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Prevailing Winds
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table to show for the last three years the number of days in each month when winds in Northern Ireland blew from the south-west to the north-west points of the compass.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the Meteorological Office, under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the Meteorological office, Dr. J. T. Houghton, to reply direct to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Adult Education: Funding
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure the continuation of non-vocational adult education, in view of the proposals in the White Papers of 20th May to end subsidies for such education and to rely on fees.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the White Papers make a distinction between the funding of education leading to a range of important outcomes and education meeting the leisure and recreational interests of adults, not between vocational and non-vocational education. We expect recreational courses to continue to be put on by a wide range of bodies, including LEAs, colleges, voluntary bodies and school governing bodies under their new freedoms. People have shown that they are prepared to pay for leisure activities of all kinds, and we believe that they are also prepared to pay for recreational courses.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's proposals in the White Paper on adult education have cast gloom and despondency upon the adult education world if only because the Government appear to have failed to understand how blurred the demarcation lines are between vocational, non-vocational, academic and leisure adult education? Can the Minister specifically reassure the House that the Government will provide LEAs with sufficient funding to continue to subsidise so-called leisure adult education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in addition to vocational education the funding council will be able to fund academic courses, basic skills courses, access to higher education courses, special needs and returning to learning courses. There will be some overlap but LEAs will be left with funds to pay for people who wish to enjoy leisure-recreational classes where they deem it necessary.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend remember that the non-vocational courses are probably the most merciful and wonderful gift that can be given to people who are old, sick and retired or those who have no friends? Thousands of people in this country find friendship and encouragement through such courses. A cutback would cause untold misery to people who do not deserve it. Therefore, will the Minister think carefully about taking any action that will harm what is regarded in this country as one of our best services?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. Nothing that has been stated in the White Papers will preclude those provisions being made available to the elderly and to the young. There will be a change in the funding mechanism but not a cut in the funding for such classes. There will be a presumption in favour of fee-paying for leisure and recreational classes, but local authorities will be able to intervene by way of subsidy where they deem it necessary.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction and sorrow among unemployed young people about the youth non-vocational training courses? The many young people who are not accepted for such courses cannot claim supplementary benefit. Will the Minister look into that matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not certain of the specific difficulty to which my noble friend refers. Local education authorities will remain free to intervene by way of subsidies for young people if they believe that the course which the young person wishes

3
to pursue is important. A basic skills course as a ladder to further learning will come under the new funding council.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said about the new thinking, will she encourage local authorities, before the provisions in the White Paper are implemented, by giving them more aid to pursue such classes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Your Lordships will notice that I made no distinction between vocational and non-vocational courses. However, it will be important for local education authorities to look at the profile across their areas and where they believe it necessary to encourage by way of intervention and subsidy. They should also encourage people who can afford to pay to take advantage of this important provision.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I first apologise to the Minister because in asking my question I speak entirely from memory. I firmly believe the White Paper to have stated that, as regards the leisure activities referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, it was assumed that local authorities would be charging full-cost fees. Do I now understand that the White Paper does not state that? Is it correct that since the publication of the White Paper two weeks ago the Government have changed their view and that they no longer believe that leisure activities should be charged at full cost?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. The noble Lord's memory serves him well. The presumption for leisure and recreation will be in favour of fee charging and local authorities will continue to have power where they deem it necessary to intervene by way of subsidy.
Lord Peston: My Lords, am I not right in saying that it is precisely the sort of activity which the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, thought so important which will be charged full-cost fees?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. There will be a presumption in favour of low-cost fees but where the local authority believes that an elderly person cannot afford to pay and that it is desirable for intervention by way of subsidy, then local authorities will be empowered so to intervene. It is not right to assume that because people are elderly, they are not able to pay for recreational courses.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that where such courses are likely to collapse because there are large numbers of elderly people who cannot afford to pay full-cost fees, the Government will provide local authorities with sufficient funding for extensive subsidies?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this year the Government increased by 16 per cent. SSAs for education to local authorities. Within that, there was a 13 per cent. increase in the heading which covers adult education. The Government's record is good. However, we cannot and do not say that we shall
4
intervene in how education authorities spend that money. The hope is that where there is a deemed need, local authorities will do all they can to meet that need.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I have been engaged in adult education for over 20 years. In volume one, paragraph 9.11 of the White Paper states that,
"public expenditure on education for adults will be concentrated on the courses that can help them in their careers and in daily life".
Will the Minister specify courses which do not help people in their daily lives?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Viscount has misinterpreted what that means. The Government have said that they will give priority to courses which enable people to achieve access to the world of work and which further their careers and self-development. I have admitted that there is some overlap. Local authorities will continue to provide leisure and recreational courses, some of which will fall into the category of self-development and self-enhancement. The presumption will be in favour of charging fees for those courses but there will continue to be the power to intervene by subsidy for groups of people who are unable to pay for the courses.

Low Cost Business Loans
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to set up a credit institution to provide low-cost loans to small and medium-sized enterprises.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to establish an institution to provide finance to small and medium-sized businesses. Her Majesty's Government already do a great deal for small and medium-sized businesses.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on 31st May the Financial Times contained a fairly detailed expose of what such a proposition may be and that Mr. Eric Forth, the Minister responsible for small businesses, stated that the Government were considering that proposition, among other possibilities? Is he further aware that in France and Germany organisations of that sort have existed for many years and have been of great help to small and medium-sized businesses? In the present situation in which small businesses find themselves in great difficulties in raising money at reasonable rates, does not the Minister consider that an imaginative move of that sort could be of enormous help to industrial recovery?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government already do a great deal for small and medium-sized enterprises. The business expansion scheme has helped many individuals to invest in small, unquoted companies. By the end of April this year the loan guarantee scheme had made 28,000 loans worth almost £900 million. Moreover, the measures announced in the Budget brought major benefits to

5
small businesses; for example, the cut in the frequency of PAYE payments, the increased VAT registration threshold, and so on.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have been outlined in many influential newspapers? People believe that that useful idea will now become a reality. Further, does he not agree that many large firms began because they were able to obtain finance in the form of loans? This is a wonderful opportunity for the Government to show that they back 100 per cent. the spirit of free enterprise.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we do not need the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, to tell us to back the spirit or free enterprise; we certainly do. Presumably all large firms began as small firms and many have become successful. I have already outlined the measures which the Government have taken to help small companies. I am aware of the measures taken in France and Germany, but we have our ways and they have theirs.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, while acknowledging the importance which the Government attach to the health of small businesses, does not the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to have a small businesses' ombudsman since small businesses are not able to avail themselves of the services of, for example the banking ombudsman and many other ombudsman services?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point, which I shall pass on.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by reminding the House that the clock is not working and that therefore we may take longer on Questions than we otherwise would. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House understands what I am saying.
Will it not be proper for the Government to build on the experience of the Welsh Development Agency, the Scottish Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales which provide serious and substantial services for small and medium-sized businesses? Is that not the right way to go about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am certain that the fact that the clock is not working will enable the House to realise that the replies given from the Dispatch Box this afternoon are very good and, therefore, perhaps we need not take 30 minutes on Questions.
The noble Lord gives examples of three government organisations which, although they may have been set up in previous times, have been carried forward within the past 12 years. They give just the sort of assistance to small businesses which the House welcomes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people in small businesses will be very surprised to hear that the Government still
6
believe in private enterprise for small businesses, especially those people in the 40,000 businesses which will go bankrupt this year?
Is the noble Lord further aware that small businesses find great difficulty in obtaining capital to keep them going? They are also having great difficulty because the Government will not reduce interest rates to below 10 per cent. That is the only action that will resuscitate business in this country. Are the Government convinced that the only way to deal with the economic problems and the slump that they have brought about is to produce and administer the same failed medicine as before?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord states that we have not reduced interest rates. We have reduced interest rates by 3.5 per cent. since last October when we joined the exchange rate mechanism. Interest rates are now lower than they have been for some considerable time.
The noble Lord further asserts that the credit crunch is seriously hampering small firms. The April CBI survey indicated that only 3 per cent. of firms cited the inability to raise external finance as a significant constraint on investment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the Minister understand that small businesses are in dire trouble because the interest rate cut of 3.5 per cent. is insufficient? Has he heard the news that the May retail figures are lower than for April, and are 2.3 per cent. lower than in May last year? That is a tragedy for small businesses.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I also heard the news last Friday that inflation has fallen to 5.8 per cent. That is extremely good news, which means that we shall be able to reduce interest rates when it is prudent to do so. I am sure that we shall continue to adopt that policy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be as unreasonable to blame the clock for a long Question Time as it would be difficult to give special treatment to what are described as small or medium-sized businesses?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. If one gives special treatment to one sector of the economy it is inevitably at the expense of another.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that despite what he says about the lowering of interest rates many small and medium-sized firms are suffering greatly from the extremely high interest rates? Is he also aware of the allegations made against the major banks about the interest rates that they have applied, particularly to small and medium sized firms? Can the Minister say what progress the Government have made in investigating those allegations? When shall we hear the findings and the recommendations that the Government will make?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government recognise that there is great anxiety about the issue raised by the noble Baroness.

7
However, most of the evidence is anecdotal. Inevitably, in most cases letters and press reports cover only one side of the story. We shall consider whether any government action is appropriate when we have more information. We shall not prejudge the issue on anecdotal evidence.

Television: Use of Bad Language
2.58 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they will take to check the use of obscene and blasphemous language in television programmes.
The Minister of State, Home Office(Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the content of individual programmes is a matter for the broadcasting authorities. But the Government have recently established the Broadcasting Standards Council and have extended the Obscene Publications Act to broadcasting.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that factual Answer. However, it does not meet the point with which I am concerned. Is he aware that last month a report was published by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, which regularly monitors the programmes of BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV and Channel 4, which finds that the number of obscenities and blasphemies in programmes has increased threefold over the past three years? The incidence is about 40 a week.
My noble friend played a distinguished part in placing the Broadcasting Act on the statute book. That Act states that nothing likely to offend against good taste and decency or to offend public feeling should be transmitted. Does he acknowledge that further action is now needed? Will he ask the authorities to take action to restrain their producers from this increasing debasement of the language?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's anxiety. Very often the use of bad language is completely unnecessary and adds nothing other than to give offence to the viewer. However, that is a personal observation. The Government have to remain separate from the issue. The broadcasters have to be constitutionally independent of government. Arrangements have been made for satisfactory programmes to be made and to be monitored. If people have cause to complain, they can complain either to the BBC or ITC—the regulatory bodies—or to the Broadcasting Standards Council. But it would not be right for the Government to interfere in such cases.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, while we understand the independence of the broadcasting media, is it not also a fact that by raising the matter today the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has served notice on those who seem to believe that the media belongs to them that their influence upon
8
standards in this country is too great for them ever to feel so independent that nobody has a right to put a brake upon them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a very good point. I believe that some people feel that they are sufficiently independent that they can do what they like. The television companies do not belong to the producers but nor do they belong to the Government. All that the Government can do is to set up a regime in which standards can operate and through which people may make complaints if they feel that standards are not upheld. Let us remember this. If a licensee does not keep to certain standards, the Independent Television Commission has the right to reprimand him and fine him 5 per cent. of his net advertising revenue. A company which earns £200 million can be fined £10 million and its licence revoked.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we understand the difficult problem that faces the noble Earl. But does he not agree that if some of the language that we hear on television were uttered on the streets, those who make such foul utterances could be arrested for using bad language?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that those who use such language do so because they believe that it is the language that people use on the streets.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's duty to stand back makes it all the more important that opinions should be expressed publicly in this House? Having read the report to which my noble friend, Lord Nugent, referred, does my noble friend the Minister accept that much of the language reproduced in it would have been startling and shocking on the lips of a trooper 20 years ago, let alone on the lips of a fishwife? Is it not regrettable that the change of standards that has occurred over that period should now be influenced by an authority which has exercised a downward pressure over the past three years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Although the Government may not be in a position to dictate what should or should not be broadcast, as he knows too well, it is perfectly right for concern to be expressed. But I was a little anxious if he felt that a fishwife's language was rather worse than a trooper's. My experience is that it would be the other way round.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, none of us appreciates gratuitous use of bad language. However, is the Minister aware that according to the latest 1990 attitudes to TV survey published by the Independent Television Commission (which covers ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC) there has been a significant decrease in the offence caused to the public by bad language? Is that not a more accurate index than simply counting up the incidence of certain words in late night films, as the survey did to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred? Monitoring by a count was the method used by the National Viewers' and Listeners'

9
Association, and it related entirely to late night films. The survey did not ask people whether they were or were not offended.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the method of research used on the two occasions was different. The occasion to which the noble Baroness refers indicates overall approval or otherwise of the programmes which are broadcast. The research carried out by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association is a mathematical calculation of how many times such words were used. I thought that was horrifying.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the point has been made very neatly. The broadcasters have an enormous effect on national standards. It is regrettable that those standards should be lowered.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is quite right.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the function of swearing and bad language is, like all aggressive displays, to substitute psychological or verbal violence for physical violence? Does he further agree that the more commonplace its usage the less effective that prophylactic is?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I certainly agree with the second part of the noble Earl's question.

London Underground: MMC Report
3 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to carry out the recommendations of the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the London Underground (Cm 1555).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, both the Government and London Underground Ltd. will give very careful consideration to the recommendations in the report. We shall be publishing our response in due course.
Lord Jay: My Lords, has the Minister noticed the statements made by the commission that the travelling public have been the principal victim because of under-Funding of the system in recent years? Does he agree that many deficiencies in the system, particularly of renewal after many years of neglect, require substantial government assistance before they can be put right?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to under-funding of the system. I believe he also spoke of recent years. I merely point out that since the Government took over the funding of London Transport Ltd. from the GLC only five years or so ago, funding has more than doubled from £165 million to £440 million.
The report makes a very considerable number of recommendations. There are 114 in all; 12 of them involve the Government and only three are for the
10
Government alone. We shall respond to the report within the next three or four months. We find it a very valuable report.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that the report is somewhat lacking in enthusiasm for the standards of administration operated by London Underground Ltd?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is. As I have said, it is a very valuable report. It makes a large number of recommendations, among which are those noted by my noble friend. I hope that they will be acted on by London Underground Ltd.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister seriously seeking to avoid any strictures on the part of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for the current under-funding? Is he not aware that it has been suggested in the report that what the Government are proposing to do would measure up to only half of London Underground's basic needs? Is it still the Government's intention in the foreseeable future to insist on a subsidy-free network for London Underground? In that case the corollary would be that fare increases are the only answer that the Conservative Government see, which is rather unfair to the passengers of London Underground, who have to endure so much?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, what the noble Lord fails to recognise is that any money spent on subsidies means that there is less money to be spent for investment. The Government have responded vigorously to the need for huge investment after decades of neglect. It is not just a question of pumping in more money. Raising standards on the oldest underground network in the world will take time and commitment by London Underground as well as by the Government.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister therefore deny the assertion which is made in the report that what the Government are proposing to do represents roughly half of the basic needs of London Underground?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we do not necessarily deny the assertions made in the report. As I have said, we shall respond to the report in due time and with due consideration.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister at least assure the House that, in fixing the financial targets for London Underground for the present financial year, which they have not yet done, they will take seriously the recommendations made in the report?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe I can give that assurance.

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Radioactive Materials (Road Transport) Bill
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in discussions on the Bill. We have the advantage in your Lordships' House of having here former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, in his place this afternoon. In addition, I thank noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench who took part in the discussions on the Bill; namely, the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord
12
Blease; Lord Holme of Cheltenham from the Liberal Benches, and my noble friends Lord Colnbrook, Lord Renton, Lord Lyell, Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Elton and Lord Brookeborough.
The House—not least through amendments which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has notified that he is unable to be here this afternoon —has made a number of important amendments. As a result, I believe that we have a Bill which is appropriate to the prevailing and serious threat in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Bill strikes a balance in affording the police and the Armed Forces acting in their support the legal means that they must have to protect effectively all members of the community in Northern Ireland. At the same time undoubtedly the Bill has appropriate safeguards for individuals.
I also express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Colville for his thorough and comprehensive report, which has been of enormous value in our discussions on the Bill and in consideration of the form which the legislation should properly take both here and in another place.
We recognise that legislation cannot of itself bring terrorism to an end. The Government will therefore continue in parallel to press on with implementing effective measures in the political, economic and social fields, designed to promote equality of treatment, prosperity and stable democratic institutions. We believe that such measures will help to create a climate in Northern Ireland in which peaceful political development can take place, thereby reinforcing the efforts of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army in freeing the people of Northern Ireland from the scourge of terrorism. Once again I thank noble Lords who took part in the passage of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister said, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who played a very active part in the proceedings on this Bill, very much regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon. I know he would like me at the outset to thank the Minister for his kind remarks and for the courteous way in which he has handled the business throughout the passage of the Bill, as we always expect him to do.
Your Lordships may be surprised that I am speaking today as I have played no part in the deliberations at any previous stage. However, it may be known to many noble Lords that over a number of years I have had certain responsibilities for matters in Northern Ireland and I therefore welcome the opportunity to set out clearly the views of the Opposition on this important Bill.
We have declared time and again that we totally regret and resent any attempt to promote political objectives by violence or the threat of violence. That is why we readily accept that security forces must have appropriate powers to deal with terrorist crime and the threat of terrorism. However, at the same time we are also fully committed to the improvement of relations between the security forces and the community and to promoting public confidence in the administration of justice. That is why any departure

13
from the rule of law that is considered necessary must be balanced by essential safeguards to protect the rights of innocent suspects. Our approach to the Bill has been guided by the need to achieve those four objectives.
This Bill will be the main legal framework which will govern the operation of the security forces and the police in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland during the next five years. It will be noted that the Bill has grown substantially since it was introduced last November. Moreover, additional regulations may yet be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 58, upon which much time was spent in Committee and on Report. The thrust of the Bill is not only to continue all existing emergency powers but to add to their number; in particular, by creating new powers and new, wide-ranging, offences. In Committee and on Report efforts were made to introduce new safeguards to protect innocent suspects or to restrict the scope of the new powers against abuse or mistake; for example, the power to examine documents found in the course of a search. The risks with some of the new powers are great and may be seen as a recipe for harassment.
Some of our amendments were based on the recommendations of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, or on the advice of the Committee on the Administration of Justice We find it deeply worrying that these efforts in genera were not successful. Indeed, there was very little support from the House for those amendments although they were designed to safeguard human rights. The Government are confident that the new powers will work well and we can only hope that time and experience will demonstrate that the Government's optimism is well-founded.
It is particularly regrettable that the Government could not be persuaded to accept the recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that the power of internment should be dropped. That reform would have signalled that conditions were emerging for Northern Ireland to return to some normality. On the other hand, the Opposition fully support the complex new powers which will be available to disrupt terrorist racketeering. We welcome the setting up of the office of Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures, although we would have strengthened the terms of reference. We also welcome the powers contained in Clauses 61 and 62 to make codes of practice. We would have expanded the use of codes of practice in at least two other spheres. It is accepted that the statutory code of practice is in a colder climate than hitherto. Nevertheless, in the absence of more detailed guidance in the primary legislation, codes of practice are a good second-best.
The leaders of the constitutional parties are today meeting in the first plenary session of stage one of the talks. The whole House will welcome that development. From the Opposition Benches we congratulate the Secretary of State on this considerable achievement. The existence of the Bill is a reminder—if a reminder is required—that there is urgent need to move in Northern Ireland towards a political
14
settlement. Therefore, we earnestly hope that no further obstacles will be put in the way of the talks and that they will continue until eventual settlement is reached.
I repeat the regret of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that he cannot be here. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I have to leave before he replies. I have an important political engagement outside the House.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches I offer our warm thanks to the Minister. We thank him not only for his thoroughness and courtesy during the passage of the Bill but also for listening to noble Lords on the Benches opposite and, in one or two regrettably small but nevertheless welcome instances, for taking on board the comments that have been made.
On these Benches we believe that this Bill is a necessity, but a regrettable necessity. Anyone who doubts that it is a necessity should consider the activities of the provisional IRA and its thuggish counterparts on the other side during the period that has led up to the approach of the substantive talks today. There seems to have been every sign of an escalation in the tactics of terror and violence. They must be resisted. This is the best chance for the people of Northern Ireland to speak. Any attempts during that period to put obstacles in the way of a peaceful resolution must be resisted in the way that this Bill makes possible.
That does not mean that we support every part of the Bill in detail, even as amended, although we welcome the steps that have been taken in the right direction. On the positive side, perhaps I may say how much we welcome the Government's attempts to curb racketeering in Northern Ireland. This is potentially of the greatest possible danger to a civilised society. The Government's proposals on resisting the institutionalisation of terrorism in the form of rackets is to be welcomed. On a more critical note, I hope that the Government's proposal to appoint someone to monitor procedures at holding centres for terrorist suspects, and the intention to introduce a code of interrogation, will go beyond what the Minister described at Second Reading as the formative stage.
I also emphasise that the case for video-recording interviews, which was made strongly from these Benches and supported from the Labour Benches, is one that the Government will, in time, have to accept. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in his distinguished report, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and practically everyone else, are on common ground in that respect. It is still a puzzle as to why the Government felt unable to move in that direction. Finally, I express our reservations in regard to Clause 34, which maintains detention without trial and brings into conflict the European Convention on Human Rights.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I take the opportunity to wish the very best for the talks starting today at Stormont and to express the hope that in the

15
long term their success will make such legislation unnecessary. We all owe a great debt to the Secretary of State for his patience in getting the negotiations to this crucial point. However, I should like to emphasise that if we can find a formula whereby the people of Northern Ireland have the opportunity to determine the future of Northern Ireland, and a genuine opportunity for self-government, then we shall have succeeded. I believe it is the force of public opinion both in Northern Ireland and in Britain that has helped to keep the politicians talking. I was particularly encouraged to read a recent opinion poll in the Irish Times which showed that 82 per cent. of people in the Republic of Ireland would be happy to see a delay in the creation of a united Ireland if it gave time for settlement in Northern Ireland. I believe that the election of Mary Robinson as President has made a very great difference to the atmosphere in the Irish Republic.
In the North, too, I believe that public opinion is in favour of progress. I should like to put on record my belief that the people of both North and South will cast a very critical eye on any further attempts at brinkmanship. It is time that these hour by hour histrionics came to an end. Some of the parties to the talks in Northern Ireland have been too slow to detect the change in attitudes which is under way among the public in Northern Ireland. If they fail to adapt to the new mood in public opinion, they will be left behind in the peace process, a sad, anachronistic monument to sectarianism.
We support the Bill as a proper precaution and for establishing a cautious context in which the only progress that matters—not tougher security, but more prosperity, better community relations and a new political settlement—can take place. In the balance that has to be struck—the Bill attempts to strike a balance between liberty and security—I believe that it is time we started to tilt the balance back to liberty and civil rights. It is time we no longer had to apologise and to derogate. I am sure that the Bill will help to contain terrorism militarily and from the security point of view. In the end, however, we can only defeat it politically.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, during the passage of the Bill through the House amendments were put forward from these Benches. Those amendments were designed to inflict the maximum damage on the terrorist and at the same time protect the rights of innocent individuals. A series of amendments related to codes of practice. They required that the Army, the police and the security forces in general, in their dealings with the population in Northern Ireland, should give every consideration to ensuring that the least possible harassment was inflicted on innocent individuals.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, and myself said that the Army can be a very blunt instrument. The police, in dealing with the scourge of terrorism, have to appear to the overwhelming majority of the Catholic population, which is a crucial factor in every respect, to be acting in strict conformity with the rule of law. If at any time there appears to be a move away from that by the
16
police or the Army, it will be jumped upon by the IRA and its supporters. We have seen it in all the allegations since 1982 about the shoot to kill policy. An incident took place last week in which three IRA terrorists were killed. Stories are gaining ground in Northern Ireland that once again a shoot to kill policy is being operated and that the security forces want not to arrest the terrorists but to kill them.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has experience of Northern Ireland. He will be aware of how these allegations gain credence over a period of days, weeks and months, and eventually write themselves into the whole mythology and psyche of the Irish nationalist population in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. The police must be seen to be above suspicion in relation to their security duties. That is why, together with other speakers on this side of the House, I supported amendments to ensure that justice would not only be done but would be seen to be done.
Only last week in this country there was a case in which it was alleged that the police had acted wrongly in relation to the Guildford Four. Serious allegations were made. The magistrate said that with the passing of 14 or 15 years it would be impossible for the police to have a fair trial. That was immediately jumped on by the IRA. It then said that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six did not have fair trials and that they had to wait 14 years and 16 years to be vindicated. I do not want to see the police in that position. I do not want to see a magistrate in the position of having to withdraw the facility of a fair trial of the police on the ground that so many years had elapsed that it would be unfair to have a trial.
If the Government had accepted the amendments put forward from this side of the House they would have got around that problem. There would have been a strict code of practice to be followed by the Army and the police in relation to terrorism. We would not have had to wait 14 or 16 years for the vindication of the pleas of innocence of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. We would not have had a magistrate in this country refusing to hear evidence on the ground that 14 years had elapsed and that therefore it was not possible to have a fair trial.
I know that we are at a late stage in the proceedings on the Bill. However, I hope that when we next come to debate this subject, through perhaps the introduction of an order, the Government will bear in mind the valid objections to the Bill and the reasonableness of the amendments that were put forward. The amendments were designed not to help terrorists in Northern Ireland but to make certain that the security forces are above suspicion.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the way he has handled the Bill. As someone who lives in Northern Ireland, I should like to thank those noble Lords who contributed to the proceedings on the Bill but who do not live there. I am sure that the people in Northern Ireland are grateful to them for taking such an interest.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, to the extent that it is most regrettable that a Bill such as this has to be passed. It is, however,

17
necessary. Everyone would like to see the time when such Bills are no longer necessary and there is peace in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that people should think that the talks which may be about to start in Northern Ireland will mean the end of terrorist violence. Unfortunately, nothing like that will appease the terrorists. Although, obviously, we wish the talks the very best of success, we cannot necessarily see an end to terrorism in the near future. While the Government's response to the problems has been the Bill—it is to be hoped that it will be a great help—there are certain worrying aspects of the Government's response to other events.
It has been lately reported that the professional heads of the security forces in Northern Ireland—the Army and the RUC—have requested two extra roulement battalions. That is not a request for more soldiers because of an increase in violence. My noble friend the Minister will probably say that extra troops are there at the moment. It has been reported that the two roulement battalions have been requested. The Government have not publicly denied that. We all hear of people in Northern Ireland, very often from one side of the population, calling for more troops. This is not one of those calls. This is a call from the professional heads who are there to do an extremely difficult job and to judge how they should do it best. It is rather worrying that the Government do not seem to be responding to that request, if indeed it has been made. In Northern Ireland we should like to consider that we have been given the best available heads of the security forces. Therefore we should like to see their request granted. Having said that, I shall just add that I welcome the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I concur with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Underhill. He has had considerable experience of dealing with Northern Ireland affairs. In making my contribution I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. We are both residents of Northern Ireland and our families live there. I share with him the wish to extend the grateful thanks of the citizens of Northern Ireland to all those who have taken a thoughtful interest in the passage of the Bill, especially through this House.
I join also in the warm appreciation expressed for all noble Lords who have served in Northern Ireland as Ministers from both sides of the House. As has been said, they are deserving of our every support. They sacrifice their home lives, with consequences for their families in this country, in many respects. I believe that their efforts in attempting to bring peace, justice and prosperity to Northern Ireland should be warmly appreciated.
Like many noble Lords, I find that most, if not all, legislative measures directly concerning the Province are fraught with complications as regards comprehension. Their implementation, in terms of parliamentary democracy, can sometimes be bewildering. The culture of parliamentary democracy is somewhat differently applied in Northern Ireland. That is all the more reason for legislation coming before this Parliament in both Houses to be examined with care
18
and sensitivity. The Bill before us is perhaps more difficult and challenging in the sense of obtaining consensus than most Northern Ireland legislative measures. Indeed, it is fraught from the very first paragraph to the end with complications and difficulties of implementation.
I join the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in the remarks he made. I warmly appreciate, like, I am sure, all Members of the House who have given thought and attention to the serious matters which are contained in the Bill and who have participated in the debate, the courteous and thoughtful manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, conducted the Bill's progress through the House and the way in which he dealt with issues which were put forward in amendments.
I endorse the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Underhill about my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who applied himself assiduously to the Bill displaying skill, sensitivity and an understanding which is sometimes not possible when one is not always able to identify oneself with the Northern Ireland situation. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies succeeded in every respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has given much thought to the matter. Anyone who has visited Northern Ireland quickly understands the problems in connection with the containment of terrorism and the need for prosperity in that sad Province. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is deserving of the warmest praise of the House for the manner in which he has carried out his work and for the report which he presented to us. He carried out the task with vigour and with a sense of the necessity to contain terrorism and the means of doing so in the context of Northern Ireland.
I should like to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Underhill, about the work of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Over the weekend I read through a report in Hansard of a debate in 1977 in which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, took part. In reading it again, it seemed to me that the way in which the noble Lord summed up the situation, which still exists today, was prophetic. The Standing Advisory Commission has carried out tremendous work and has helpfully put forward positive and constructive proposals in connection with this piece of necessary legislation.
Sadly, I must say that I am one of many speakers taking part in these Northern Ireland debates who has strongly advocated the need for Bills, which can be fully debated, rather than Orders in Council. This Bill should have been debated more fully. It certainly went through a lengthy process in Committee in another place; but, as regards the amendments which were tabled, I believe that the Bill was not analysed or taken apart as it should have been. The Government would have had an opportunity to reply. I felt that that opportunity was lacking. It does not provide much incentive for people to go through the normal parliamentary processes. I feel that the full democratic process of presenting legislation in Bill form is most desirable. However, in my estimation, what took place in relation to this Bill certainly did not meet the

19
necessary requirements as regards how the Members of both Houses ought to approach the matter. The process was sadly lacking.
I believe that the Minister said on a previous occasion that terrorism will not succeed and that parliamentary democracy will prevail. However, sadly, we have heard today that yet another man was murdered on his way to work in the Province. This Bill may be something with which we do not wish to have to cope in the sense of parliamentary democracy but, in the context of Northern Ireland, there is nothing more necessary than a Bill which provides security for people in work, and for others, in that sad community. Terrorists have murdered people. We see the mounting toll of those who have died. Let us not forget either the thousands of wrecked lives in families in Northern Ireland. And still people suffer.
Mention has been made of the talks which are taking place today. I conclude by again expressing the hope that such talks will be steered clearly towards a consensus that will enable us to put the problems back on to the stage of justice and give everyone a sense of participating in the affairs of that sad Province. I understand that three stages have been decided for the agenda. I believe that a fourth stage which is seldom mentioned—namely, a stage concerning employment, industrial development, the need for co-operation between the North and the South, and the need for education and care—should be put high on the agenda at an early moment. Those are matters for which the people of Northern Ireland are striving. Those are the important matters, not death and destruction which bring nothing but despair to the community. I hope that the talks will lift the community and create a spirit of co-operation and trust one for another.
Finally, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Bill's passage, especially the Minister who has kept us informed throughout all stages with details and notes on clauses. Having said that, I wish the Bill a fair passage.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on Third Reading. I should first tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I most certainly agree with him that the way in which the legislation is implemented is of the utmost importance. Some of the amendments, not least those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, were precisely designed to achieve that effect. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has taken part in the debate this afternoon and I very much welcome his intervention during all stages of the Bill. This afternoon he, together with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, drew attention to areas of the Bill over which we did not agree. I shall not go into them at this stage.
But I wish to mention specifically one point on which we all agreed which was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme; that is, the hope that the talks going on in Northern Ireland will succeed. The last of your Lordships to speak, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, understands a great deal more than most people whom I know about how to try to make progress in
20
Northern Ireland through social, industrial and commercial as well as political ways. I was glad that at the end he referred to this and wished the talks well.
Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who has taken a great deal of trouble to be here at every stage of the Bill and is present this afternoon, that he of all people will understand that, although we keep force levels under review, as he fairly said, reinforcements are often provided in the face of specific need. He would not expect me to reply to the question he asked today. The reason, as he will well understand, is that, if there are changes in force levels at any time, it is best that they come as a surprise for all concerned. That is operationally crucial and sometimes operationally it can be a matter of life and death.
I thank noble Lords again for taking part in the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Education (Swimming and Water Safety) Bill [H.L.]
3.42 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Amendment of Education Reform Act 1988]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 not moved.]
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Since I introduced the Bill nearly two months ago I have received a large number of messages of support and helpful suggestions from other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Saint Levan have taken great trouble to table constructive amendments to my Bill, although they are not here in person this afternoon. I thank them for the interest that they have taken and for the fact that the amendments were tabled in the spirit of support for the general principle of the Bill.
Unfortunately, this debate was originally scheduled for eight o'clock this evening but due to pressing commitments, my noble friend Lord Saint Levan could not make it up from Cornwall in time and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has been unavoidably delayed on business abroad. Both have asked me to convey their apologies to the House.
In his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has drawn attention to the important issue of exemptions on medical, religious and cultural grounds. Clearly there needs to be provision within the Bill for exemptions on a number of grounds, not least those outlined in his amendment. I accept that

21
the Bill is defective in this respect and I shall ensure that when it reaches its Committee stage in the Commons it is appropriately amended.
My noble friend Lord Saint Levan seeks to amend the Bill so that its provisions apply to primary schools only on the grounds that the optimum age at which to learn swimming is between eight and 11. This would considerably reduce the costs. My noble friend has a valid point and I appreciate the sentiments behind his amendment. I am conscious of the need to ensure the most efficient use of the resources available for teaching swimming.
It is for that reason that when I introduced my Bill I made it clear that initially at least resources should be targeted on a programme of teaching 10 year-old children to swim. However, I also believe that there needs to be flexibility within the legislation so that, for example, if resources permit, a programme of remedial swimming lessons can be introduced for secondary school pupils who are unable to swim.
Since my Bill was given a Second Reading there has also been a further statement of clarification from my honourable friend the Minister for Sport in an adjournment debate in another place introduced by the honourable Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. The Minister made a welcome reaffirmation of the Government's support for the principle of curricular swimming and the objective of teaching every youngster to swim by the age of 11. However, he went on to repeat his reasonable anxiety that to do that immediately would require a substantial increase in funding resources.
When I introduced my Bill, I quoted from an assessment made by the Amateur Swimming Association at a recent conference organised by the Swim for Life Campaign that the cost of teaching all 10 year-olds to swim is £4.8 million. Since that conference, the ASA's facilities consultant has made a further estimate that at least £30 million is currently being spent in an untargeted and disorganised fashion on pool hire, swimming teachers and transport in teaching children to swim. In other words, if these figures are correct, the cost of teaching 10 year-olds to swim could easily be met within the current education budget.
The only source which has questioned in principle the objective of teaching swimming in schools has been a letter in The Times from the director general of RoSPA, Julian Wethered, who repeated the widely held misconception that swimmers are more at risk of drowning than non-swimmers. The issue was dealt with admirably during the Bill's Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. However, as it is the solitary public criticism that has been made of the principle underpinning the Bill, I wish briefly to address it this afternoon.
It is self-evident that someone who has received inadequate swimming instruction and who develops a false confidence could be in greater danger than someone who knows that they cannot swim at all and avoids the water. However, the research undertaken in this area by the Royal Life Saving Society UK and the Amateur Swimming Association shows clearly that in most cases ability to swim is a critical factor in
22
reducing the risk of drowning. Many people who drown find themselves unexpectedly in the water and only about one-quarter are actually in the water to swim.
Mr. Wethered says that teaching children,
"an understanding of the dangers and a respect for water",
is more important than teaching them to swim, as though these activities were mutually exclusive. Of course it is not sufficient merely to teach people to swim. That is why both my Bill and the National Curriculum Working Group's report include commitments to teach all children, alongside swimming tuition, to understand water safety, to be aware of the hazards, to know the swimming pool users' safety code and to know about safer swimming in open water.
My Bill also stipulates that there should be national standards of swimming appropriate to a child of that age. The working group has also recognised the necessity of teaching children to swim to a specified definition. Drowning prevention, therefore, will be brought about not just through teaching people the hazards associated with water, but through a combination of education and practice comprising water safety education, safe swimming practices and supervised swimming by lifeguards. Is it not better for children to learn safe swimming practices from a qualified teacher than to learn by themselves, by trial and error?
The National Water Safety Committee was so concerned at the letter in The Times that at its meeting last week it passed a minute recording its total support for the principle of teaching swimming in schools and deploring wholeheartedly the letter from the Director-General of RoSPA. This committee, for which RoSPA provides the secretariat, comprises every major organisation concerned with water safety, including the Beach Advisory Committee for Devon and Cornwall, the British Canoe Union, Her Majesty's Coastguards, the Institute of Baths and Recreation Management, the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the Surf Life Saving Society of Great Britain, as well as the three national governing bodies of swimming: the Royal Life Saving Society UK, the Amateur Swimming Association and the English Schools Swimming Association.
To sum up, in spite of the intervention from the Director-General of RoSPA, I am delighted by the reception which my Bill has received. Since I introduced this Bill back in April, the support for swimming on the national curriculum has gathered pace. In another place my honourable friend the member for Congleton has introduced a Private Member's Bill similar to mine under the 10-minute rule, and co-sponsored an Early Day Motion welcoming the recommendation of the National Curriculum PE Working Group which has been signed by 240 Members of Parliament of all parties. The sponsors of the Bill and Early Day Motion include five former Ministers for Sport.
I am confident that, when the National Curriculum Working Group reports to the Secretary of State at the end of this month, it will reaffirm its recommendation that all primary school children

23
should learn to swim and have a knowledge of water safety skills. I hope that he will accept the report, at least in principle. Finally, I hope that my Bill, and the debate which it has generated, will have helped to demonstrate the breadth of cross-party support for the principle of teaching swimming in schools and that the Government will allow it to proceed when it passes over to another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Norrie.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. I believe that noble Lords from all parts of the House have supported this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. Statistics have been compiled to show the number of deaths that are attributable to drowning. I do not claim that teaching someone how to swim will automatically prevent him from drowning. Some people drown as they become too adventurous and swim where they should not.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned a figure of £4.8 million. If that money were provided, it would mean that by the age of 11 every child would be taught how to swim. I believe that, if that were the case, there would be a tremendous reduction in the number of child deaths due to drowning. Unfortunately there has been a substantial increase in the number of young people who have died through drowning. There has also been an increase in the number of people in general who have died through drowning, but that increase is mainly attributable to young people who do not know how to swim. This Bill will go a long way towards remedying that situation. We on these Benches, and I am sure the rest of your Lordships' House, give the Bill enthusiastic and unqualified support.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord's Bill. Sadly I could not attend its previous stages as on each occasion those stages took place at a late hour in the evening. However, as my noble friend has just said, I am sure the Bill will be supported in all parts of your Lordships' House. I am an ex-teacher and I am not sure when swimming ceased to be taught. When I was teaching every primary school child was taught how to swim. That could not have cost governments millions of pounds as the PE teachers taught the children how to swim. I was a PE teacher and therefore I do not understand why these vast sums are referred to. However, it is typical of the Government nowadays to say that any provision that is referred to will cost a lot of money. This is an important Bill and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, upon introducing it. If he needs any further support at a later stage, I hope he will call on Members of this House to provide it.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I would have supported this Bill right through its passage in your Lordships' House but I was out of the country at that time. In the 1950s a big building programme took place in this country. I was enormously in favour of building swimming baths, as they do not take up much land. That was an important factor in those days. However, a more important reason for constructing swimming
24
baths is that, as a sport, swimming does not require a lot of brain power. One does not have to be clever to be good at swimming. Swimming is a wonderful sport for bringing children together, some of whom feel inferior to others perhaps because of their colour. Quite stupid children can obtain great prizes for swimming. Therefore I am strongly in favour of swimming and of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must apologise to the House as the rapidity of today's Business meant that I missed the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I wish the Bill well. As I stated on Second Reading of the Bill, as everyone has the capacity to drown everyone should at least know how to swim so that all have a chance to save themselves. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I, too, think swimming constitutes good exercise for everyone. Once swimming pools are constructed, they are not the most difficult things in the world to maintain. Also they do not require a great deal of land. Swimming constitutes good preventive medicine as it helps to reduce the incidence of heart disease, for example. I recommend that the Bill be given the full support of both Houses of Parliament.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Woodgrange Park Cemetery and Crematorium Bill [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I wish to stress to the House that this is not a Private Member's Bill; it is a Private Bill. The Bill is designed to do one thing and one thing alone, and that is to benefit the London Borough of Newham. Woodgrange Park Cemetery is an unconsecrated, privately owned and operated cemetery in East Ham, in the London Borough of Newham. Those of your Lordships who know it will be aware that it is in a serious state of dilapidation and disrepair and that it urgently needs a large amount of work done to it in order that it may once more become an asset to the local community, as opposed to an appalling eyesore.
Many people still visit the cemetery to tend the graves of their families. I hope that everyone will welcome an attempt to maintain it to a high standard. The owner of the cemetery is a private company, Badgehurst Ltd., a privately run company based in Essex. It assumed responsibility for the cemetery in its current state in 1981. During the interim 10-year period the company has been actively engaged in discussions with the local planning authority—the London Borough of Newham—to try to agree a scheme of restoration. After this great length of time —some would consider it a monstrous length of time —the discussions have made significant progress and it is hoped that matters may soon be finalised.
The restoration plans may be divided into two parts. First, the company proposes to replace the disused Victorian chapel within the cemetery with a

25
crematorium which will provide a much needed service for the local community, especially for Hindus whose religious requirements for cremation currently mean that families travel many miles, even as far as Darlington, for the cremation of family members. The proposed crematorium has been designed by the architects John Pardey and Ronald Yee. Two weeks ago it was selected as one of 150 projects from among 4,000 applicants for display at the Royal Academy's Summer Exhibition. It was granted outline planning consent by the London Borough of Newham in August of last year.
As well as a crematorium there are plans for extensive gardens of remembrance, including a columbarium, and the rest of the cemetery will be landscaped to a high-quality design, with roads re-surfaced and lighting installed. That will provide much-needed burial spaces for the community and accommodate the special needs of the Moslem population, who do not accept cremation. The owners will they £500,000 into a trust fund so that the future maintenance of the cemetery can be assured.
All those works will naturally be costly. Therefore, the second part of the refurbishment plans involves the sale of a disused portion of the cemetery for much-needed housing in the area. That will then provide the necessary finance for the cemetery works to proceed. The London Borough of Newham has resolved to grant outline planning consent for that development subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement between the borough and the owners of the cemetery.
I now turn to the question of why those plans require an Act of Parliament. It is because the provisions of two pieces of public legislation would, unless specifically disapplied to the current circumstances, render the proposed development and renovation plans unlawful. It is worth recording that Clause 8 of the Bill specifically ensures that the Bill itself will not grant planning permission for the scheme. The promoters are totally in agreement with the concept that such matters should continue to be dealt with by the local planning authority.
The Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 provides, quite rightly in my view, in Section 3 that it:
"shall not be lawful to erect any buildings upon any disused burial ground, except for the purpose of enlarging a church, chapel, meeting house, or other places of worship".
As general public law that must be correct. However, that provision would prevent the proposed housing development from taking place. The Bill therefore provides that it should be disapplied. Without that development the cemetery would remain the appalling eyesore that it is today. Various modifications and except ions to the section have on many occasions been enacted in public and private legislation, most recently by the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981. However, the modifications of that Act are of no assistance to those who wish to see this Bill go forward.
The other provision of public legislation which the Bill specifically disapplies is Section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902. In particular, that provides that no crematorium shall be constructed nearer than 200 yards to any private dwelling except with the consent
26
of the owner. That restriction has been relaxed on numerous occasions by private local Acts of Parliament. In particular, the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1935 provides in Section 64 that Section 5 of' the Cremation Act 1902 shall in its application to a London borough council be modified so as, among other things, not to apply to the construction of a crematorium situated more than 100 yards away from any dwelling. In other words, as usual, it is one law for a local authority and another for the rest of us. Unfortunately, as the promoters are not the local borough council they cannot make use of that modification. That is why Clause 5 of the Bill has been included.
In its disapplication of those provisions the Bill is very well precedented. Numerous similar such Bills have been enacted in the past 30 to 40 years and this Bill is nothing new. That includes the provisions of Clause 6 relating to the removal of human remains, providing an alternative procedure for the exhumation of human remains to that under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857. The Home Office approves of that procedure, and the promoters have agreed to amend Clause 6(1) so that all human remains will be removed from the scheduled land and reinterred elsewhere within the cemetery before development commences. In any event, from their records the promoters believe that the last burials in the scheduled lands took place many years ago—some 34 years ago—and it is widely believed that any such remains will have virtually decomposed by now.
A large number of petitions have been lodged against the Bill, and the considerable, and I may say commendable, efforts of the Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery to oppose it in that way should not go unnoticed. There are also petitions from the London Borough of Newham—which is bizarre—and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, although the promoters hope in due course to be able to satisfy their various anxieties. However, I suggest that this is not the place to examine the objections to the Bill in detail. That may, and should properly, be done in the Opposed Bill Select Committee in the event that your Lordships agree tonight that the Bill should be given its Second Reading.
I turn briefly to the instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I, and the promoters, welcome that. We believe that they will be able to demonstrate to the Select Committee beyond peradventure that the passing of the Bill is in the public interest, in the same way as the disapplication of the statutory provisions to which I have referred have been seen to be in the public interest on so many occasions in the past. It is only right that this Bill should be allowed to proceed to Committee so that its provisions can be examined in detail.
This is a good Bill which, if passed, will mean that the plans for renovation of the cemetery may finally proceed. I therefore commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Morris.)
4.8 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for taking the House through the Bill and explaining it in detail. I should also like to thank him for the eminently reasonable attitude which he has adopted towards the Bill and towards the opponents of the Bill.
Nobody would disagree with the noble Lord that Woodgrange cemetery is an appalling eyesore and that something needs to be done about it. Indeed, something should have been done about it after Badgehurst acquired ownership of the cemetery in 1981. Unfortunately, to date nothing has happened. But I and many others believe that the measures contained in the Bill are not the way to go about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, will realise, as he has mentioned, that the Bill and the actions proposed by it have proved deeply offensive to a great many people who will be adversely affected by it and to the relatives and friends of those who are buried in the Woodgrange cemetery. No fewer than 116 petitions have been lodged against the Bill—by the residents of Tenbury Close, the Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery, the Newham Borough Council and, last but by no means least, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I have also received a petition from other residents in the area which, although it has no official locus, indicates that there is considerable opposition to the measure apart from and in addition to that expressed in the Petitions which have a locus standi.
Furthermore, the Member of Parliament for Newham, North-East, Mr. Ron Leighton, has received a host of representations against the Bill. Representations have also been made to other Members on both sides of the House of Commons, including the Father of the House, Sir Bernard Braine, who has expressed his concern about the provisions of the Bill and especially in relation to the heartache which will be caused to people who have relatives buried in Woodgrange cemetery.
I have met Mr. Leighton together with representatives of Tenbury Close residents, the Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery, officers of Newham Borough Council and a representative of the War Graves Commission. It was as a result of that meeting, going through the Bill and its implications and hearing of the concerns of all those interested parties present that I agreed to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. I do so gladly because the promoters appear to have had scant regard, at least until now, for the interests and feelings of those adversely affected by it. Nor, so far as I can see—I hope that they will change—have the promoters, Badgehurst Ltd., gone out of their way to co-operate with the borough council in coming to arrangements that satisfy the council's own requirements as the properly elected authority and those private individuals whose interests would be affected.
Newham Borough Council agrees that the cemetery is in need of work to restore it to a fit and proper condition. I appreciate that the council is dissatisfied with the record of Badgehurst Ltd. which, after 10 years of ownership, far from improving the cemetery has let it slip into further dereliction. Like other
28
petitioners, the borough council objects to the proposal for a crematorium; not only because it is unnecessary as the borough is well served by three crematoria which all currently operate below full capacity but because the proposed crematorium would be in close proximity to residential accommodation. In Clause 5(2) the Bill seeks to ride roughshod over the rights of owners and lessees by removing the protection afforded to them by Section 5 of the Cremation Act of 1902.
The residents of Tenbury Close and of other roads in the vicinity of Woodgrange have every reason to be worried about the building of a crematorium, the siting of which will be within 120 yards of houses in Tenbury Close. To give your Lordships some idea of what that distance means, it is about four times the length of the Chamber; so your Lordships will realise that the crematorium would be in close proximity to the houses.
The pollution from smells and other emissions from the crematorium will not only injuriously affect the environment and the well-being of residents but it is also bound to affect the value of their properties and make them difficult to sell. As the borough council owns residential property in the vicinity it, too, will be affected by a reduction in the value of property; so the public purse, as well as private individuals, is bound to be adversely affected. In addition, the crematorium will generate additional vehicular traffic which will have to use the shared access road through Tenbury Close, thus causing disturbance, nuisance and danger to residents. For all those reasons it is an effrontery that the Bill should propose the removal of all the rights and protection that Parliament has given to individual owners and lessees.
I now turn to other matters in the Bill. Paragraph 4 of the preamble states that the cemetery has not been used for the burial of human remains since 1946. However, evidence through historical aerial photographs and headstones on graves within the scheduled lands show that burials have taken place within the past 30 years. That constitutes a significant time difference as the numbers of the bereaved will be greater. The Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery have evidence which shows that burials have taken place in those lands since 1948—in 1969, 1976, 1981, 1982 and 1987—so some of the burials are very recent. I feel sure that Badgehurst will wish to re-examine its assertion that there have been no burials in the scheduled lands since 1948.
Furthermore, the proposal to construct housing on the scheduled lands would mean houses being built on land used for comparatively recent burials. Little wonder that anxiety has been expressed by the Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery about the rights of deed holders and the dignity of the dead. It rightly questions the demand for houses built over the remains of people buried in the cemetery in the not-too-distant past. To date there have been 20,000 burials in Woodgrange cemetery, which gives some idea of the scale of burials there. Clause 6 of the Bill is therefore insensitive and unnecessary and can only cause heartache to families involved with the cemetery. The proposal in Clause 6(11), to set aside

29
the Burial Act of 1857, is offensive and has serious implications for public health and the proper removal of human remains.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. It is petitioning against the Bill because it is responsible for caring for the graves of officers and men of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force who fell in the First and Second World Wars. Within the scheduled lands referred to in the Bill there are some 100 war burials in common graves which the commission was not allowed to mark individually. The graves are therefore marked by a war memorial situated in the cemetery but outside the scheduled lands. Badgehurst Ltd. says that it no longer has adequate records and cannot say who is buried in any common grave, assuming that its position were known. In those circumstances, it does not seem possible for the remains of any specific war burial to be identified and removed to another cemetery for burial.
The commission therefore believes that the additional protocol to the Geneva Convention should be applied to the proposals in the Bill; namely, that disturbance of war graves should be allowed only where overriding public necessity can be shown. Certainly, in this case, such public necessity cannot be shown. As, in the view of Newham Borough Council, the cemetery is still needed for burials, including Moslem burials, it can be demonstrated that the Bill is against the public interest on that score alone, let alone the many other disadvantages connected with the Bill to which I referred.
The Bill should be withdrawn. To date the promoters have not put themselves out in any sense to meet the legitimate concerns of the petitioners. Their failure to conclude a Section 106 agreement with Newham Borough Council, which has tried to be as helpful as possible, is an indication of their determination to try to force their policy through regardless of the rights and interests of others.
In accordance with our conventions, the Bill will no doubt receive a Second Reading, which I shall not oppose. If it does, I shall move the Instruction that is set out on the Order Paper. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will not oppose that. I have already illustrated why I believe that Acts of Parliament should not be set aside as is proposed in the Bill. Suffice it for me simply to emphasise that. Acts of Parliament passed for the protection of people, their interests, decency, dignity and public health, should not be lightly set aside unless it can be shown that it is in the public interest so to do. I do not believe that the Bill illustrates that.
4.20 p m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as is normally the case on Private Bills, the Opposition do not take an official view and anything that I say on the Bill will be an expression of my personal opinion rather than the point of view of my colleagues.
It appears to me that two kinds of issues are involved in the Bill. First, there are the issues raised by the Instruction to be moved by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Those are the questions relating to whether
30
or not it is proper to override the Disused Burial Grounds Act of 1884, the Cremation Act of 1902, and the Burial Act of 1857.
I have listened with care both to what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said on this subject. Incidentally, I think that the noble Lord is wrong in saying that the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1935 created one law for local authorities and another for other people. As I understand it, the 1935 Act would apply to any crematorium within the London County Council area, and it does not apply in this case because the crematorium is not within the London County Council area. I do not believe that that criticism of local authorities is justified.
I also listened with care to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. He has a good case for the terms of the Instruction he is putting forward, and I hope that the Select Committee will take it seriously. But the issues are much wider than that; they concern the role of Private Bills in relation to planning conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, in moving the Second Reading, said that considerable progress had been made towards reaching planning agreement. He cited the fact that the local authority had, he said, given outline consent for the crematorium. I do not believe so. I believe it said that it was minded to authorise its officers to give consent provided that a Section 106 agreement was satisfactorily concluded.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that the authority had given outline consent for the crematorium. Well, it could hardly avoid doing so. It had no grounds in planning law not to. But the fundamental consideration is whether the Cremation Act 1902 should be overridden. The noble Lord will know only too well that the council, in its capacity as owner of some of the houses within 200 yards of the proposed crematorium, proposes to object, and therefore that planning consent, which could not reasonably be withheld, cannot in fact be implemented.
I leave on one side the question of the financial issues that might arise. I note that negotiations have gone on for a considerable time between the owners and the council for the purchase of the cemetery by the council. I understand that the owners were looking for a payment of £4.6 million, whereas the council thought that the proper payment was £1. I draw attention to the contrast between the financial probity and wisdom of the Newham Borough Council as compared with the City of Westminster, which got rid of three cemeteries for 5p. each and is now having to make offers in excess of £1 million for them. I believe that noble Lords will know that it is our view that Labour councils generally are better protectors of public funds than Conservative councils.
However, leaving that on one side, this Bill, in addition to its attempts to overturn previous Acts of Parliament, is in effect an attempt to bypass planning permission. That is the most serious consideration for the Select Committee. The borough council, as is its duty under planning laws, is prepared to give outline permission for a crematorium and for housing on

31
three of the 20 acres of the cemetery. But it is prepared to do so only if other laws are complied with and a Section 106 agreement is adhered to.
The most important point of a Section 106 agreement is that the money gained from developer's profits for the three acres of housing should be used in an agreed scheme of improvement of the cemetery. Since the noble Lord, Lord Morris, my noble friend and I are all agreed that the fundamental requirement is that the cemetery should be brought into proper use again, I cannot for the life of me see why there should be a Private Bill which in effect weakens the power of the local authority to impose a Section 106 agreement—because that is the view of the local authority and of its parliamentary agents.
The noble Lord who moved the Bill and the committee that will have to consider it should give serious consideration before agreeing to do anything that weakens the powers of the local planning authority to secure that building over part of a cemetery is carried out only when the proceeds are to be used to preserve the rest of the cemetery. I am reminded of the Irish senator who said that he was prepared to see not only a part of their glorious constitution but, if necessary, the whole of it abandoned in order to preserve the remainder. We are talking here of only three acres out of 20, but even so I hope that the committee concerned will feel that it should not allow parts of this Bill other than those that have already been objected to to go through without preserving the rights and duties of the planning authority.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is traditional on Private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance and this Bill is no exception to the rule. The disposal of the dead is a subject that understandably arouses a great deal of concern. The Government have considered the contents of the Bill very carefully and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the promoters. Neither my department nor the Home Office has any outstanding points on the Bill. Our comments have been answered fully.
There are 116 Petitions against the Bill and the petitioners will have the opportunity of presenting their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position than we are today to examine in detail the sensitive issues involved. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual conventional way to the Select Committee for this detailed examination.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the enormous number of noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this important little Bill. May I first make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—there is no reason why he should know the full history behind this, and I do not want to go into it at length—that the ownership of this private, unconsecrated burial ground came into the possession
32
of the present company as a result of a part payment of a debt. The first thing in the world they want is to get rid of this turbulent priest.
They have been trying for years and years to get the London Borough of Newham to contribute something to the local amenity. I do not want to get political about this. The only way out that they could possibly see is this particular route. As I tried to say in my opening remarks in moving this Bill, I would remind the noble Lord that there are many precedents. I do not want to repeat what I said before and I cannot look it up because the Hansard staff, who obviously want to get home early tonight, have taken my notes from me. For the life of me I cannot remember precisely what I said but that is the gist of it.
This is not a new concept. It is not a new idea. The company is not trying to profit from digging up a graveyard or upsetting the local people. On the contrary it wants to restore the graveyard to its former glory. It was in an abominable state when the company was forced to take it over, and it is trying to do its best. I think it is grossly unfair to use this Chamber at Second Reading to make points that should properly be made in the opposed Bill Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? The noble Lord is now raising the issue of the procedure of this House. Unless we who consider the matter on the Floor of the Chamber make such observations as we think proper on the detail of the Bill, the Select Committee that has to deal with the Bill will not have the opportunity to consider all the points that might be made. I think it is wrong for the noble Lord to suggest that it is in any way unfair—he used the word "unfair" and not "improper"—for us to consider the Bill in such detail as we think fit on Second Reading.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I do not want to have an argument with the noble Lord about the procedures of the House. However, it is important to realise that Second Reading debates on private Bills are designed to consider the Bills more in their generality. Otherwise, why do we have a Select Committee procedure in the first place?
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made an excellent speech, and demonstrated precisely why that Select Committee procedure has been in place for so many years. It is up to both public and private petitioners on a Bill to put their cases admirably to a Select Committee, which, after all, is made up of Members of your Lordships' House. I believe that to be the proper procedure. It would be wrong to argue the point further. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and who have supported the Second Reading of the Bill. It should pass as quickly as possible to the Select Committee for consideration.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
4.30 p m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill will be committed that it should not allow the Bill to proceed unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest both to set aside the protection afforded to the public in this case by Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857
34
and Section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902 and to override the effect of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before five o'clock.

  LIFE SENTENCE IMPRISONMENT: VARIATION OF RECOMMENDED PERIOD
  LIFE SENTENCE IMPRISONMENT: VARIATION OF RECOMMENDED PERIOD
  BRITISH VOTERS ABROAD
  BRITISH VOTERS ABROAD
  CAR THEFTS BY YOUNG PEOPLE: DEATHS IN POLICE CHASES
  CAR THEFTS BY YOUNG PEOPLE: DEATHS IN POLICE CHASES
  CAR THEFTS BY YOUNG PEOPLE: DEATHS
  CAR THEFTS BY YOUNG PEOPLE: DEATHS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: INTERNATIONAL RAIL SERVICE SUBSIDY PROPOSAL
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: INTERNATIONAL RAIL SERVICE SUBSIDY PROPOSAL
  ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE: APPEALS
  ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE: APPEALS
  MOBILITY ALLOWANCE: APPEALS
  MOBILITY ALLOWANCE: APPEALS
  NURSE GRADING: APPEALS AND TRUST HOSPITALS
  NURSE GRADING: APPEALS AND TRUST HOSPITALS