Sitting of 27 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 4 July.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 2 July.

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 4 July.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May]. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 4 July.
  Mr. Speaker: As the next two Bills have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 4 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Institute of Directors
    Sir Marcus Fox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations about economic policy he has received from the Institute of Directors.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations about economic policy he has received from the Institute of Directors.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): None, but I have seen the May Institute of Directors survey which reported a sharp rise in business confidence and in optimism about the economy in general.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Without being derogatory to the Confederation of British Industry, which largely represents the bigger companies in the United Kingdom, is not it important to recieve from the Institute of Directors, which represents smaller and medium-sized businesses, this encouraging news? Just as important is the fact that it agrees with the step-by-step approach in lowering interest rates. Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist the siren voices of the Opposition who say that we should reduce interest rates every week?
    Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The best way to build the steady and sustained recovery that we believe will occur is by the policies that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now pursuing.
    Mr. Tim Smith: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the Institute of Directors, will he point out the hopeless inconsistency of those who, at every possible opportunity, call for a reduction in interest rates while claiming to support sterling's position within the exchange rate mechanism? Will he condemn the Labour party for that outrageous irresponsibility?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes. What the Labour party has never been able to explain is why it says that this recession is made in Downing street and why it blames the Government for the fact that interest rates were too low in 1988 when it was then calling, as it usually does, for them to be 1 per cent. lower. It is also clear that it is entirely inconsistent with our obligations within the ERM to pursue the interest rate policy that Labour suggests. Labour Members need to explain that and why their substitute for the Government's interest rate policy is credit controls, which would do nothing but seriously damage the British economy.
    Mr. Douglas: What overtures has the Minister made to the Institute of Directors and to other directors about the excessive salary increases that directors of certain establishments have given themselves? If the cure for inflation is a price worth paying, why is that price not being paid by those who are in charge of major British companies and corporations?
    Mr. Mellor: I suspect that the reason why some of the increases have hit the headlines is that they are the exception rather than the rule. Some directors have taken reductions—
    Mr. Canavan: Name them.
    Mr. Mellor: A top executive of British Airways, for one. That is the position which prudent directors will want to adopt so as not to undermine the important message to the work force that pay increases should be affordable and should not damage their company's competitive position.
    Mrs. Beckett: When the Chief Secretary meets representatives of the Institute of Directors, will he discuss with them their report "Continuing Tax Reform", in which they advocate the same tax policies as the Government—cuts in the rate of income and corporation tax and in capital taxes and increases in value added tax —and identify as the inevitable and logical consequence the disappearance of state pensions and benefits, the health service and the education service, apart from a fallback scheme for the destitute? Are they wrong, or just more honest than the Government?
    Mr. Mellor: I shall be happy to discuss a number of matters with representatives of the Institute of Directors including, certainly, any views that they may have on taxation. The Institute of Directors and a number of other responsible bodies believe that entrepreneurial activity will be best advanced in a society that has competitive tax rates. That is something which the Institute of Directors could well discuss with the hon. Lady, as is the view recently expressed by the director, Mr. Morgan, that Labour party policy amounts to fudge and that fudge is no solution.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the IOD whether it is possible to square the continual pledges by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that a future Labour Government will be careful with public spending with the procession of pledges by Labour spokesmen that, under any future Labour Government, their Department will be a priority? Is not the truth of the matter that Labour Members are up to their old game of trying to be all things to all men and does not this illustrate that no amount of sharp suits or tacky red plastic roses can hide how little Labour has really changed?
    Mr. Mellor: It is certainly true that even the best tailor cannot cover the figure of £35 billion. There is absolutely no doubt that the Labour party will at some point have to answer the charge carefully levelled against it. Precise words are used in Labour's policy document—words plainly honed by the Labour party and intended to be words of commitment. It will have to tell us whether these are real commitments—and, if they are, what the tax implications will be—or whether they are just empty words designed to cajole interest groups into supporting the Labour party.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that question 2 is not to be taken, so in the interests of balance, I shall call one more Opposition Member.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Which is it to be? Mr Campbell-Savours.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Chief Secretary answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked? If Tory policy is to cut taxes —we are told, by 5p in the pound—how will it be paid for? Does it mean that universities will close, schools will close [HON. MEMBERS: "No"], health centres will close [HON. MEMBERS: "No"], hospitals will close [HON. MEMBERS "No"], roads will not be built—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When Labour has control—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has gone a bit far.
    Mr. Mellor: All the hon. Gentleman needs is a puff of green smoke. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"."] I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question by telling him that it will happen in the future precisely as it happened in the past.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where will the money come from?
    Mr. Mellor: Over the past 12 years, there has been a 17 per cent. increase in real terms in public expenditure—as against a fall under the last Labour Government—coupled with cuts in tax rates for both individuals and companies.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where will the money come from?
    Mr. Mellor: If the hon. Gentleman will shut up and stop saying, "Where will the money come from?", I will tell him.[Interruption.] Have you done?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes.
    Mr. Mellor: The money comes from creating the kind of dynamic entrepreneurial economy that we had in the 1980s.

    Earnings
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in real take-home pay for a married man with two children on average earnings between 1979 and 1990.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Real take-home pay for a married man with two children on average earnings has risen by more than a third under this Government.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Clearly there is a lot of good news there for the average family on average wages. However, what impact would an extra £35 billion worth of spending have on an average family on average earnings?
    Mrs. Shephard: Sadly for the average family, Labour's plans for an additional £35 billion of extra spending would increase the tax bill for the average taxpayer by £20 a week.
    Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Lady nevertheless admit that taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product is still at a much higher percentage? Even though the take-home pay of the average person might have gone up, his or her tax rates have increased even more. The percentage of

    1121
    taxation as a proportion of GDP was much higher in the 1980s than it was in the 1970s. The hon. Lady is no charlatan, so will she give an honest answer and admit that the Tory party is the party of high taxation?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am being urged to be a charlatan. However, I will adhere to my normal practice and say that real take-home pay is what matters for the living standards of real people. The tax burdens are lower now at all multiples of average earnings than they would have been if they had been indexed at the tax regime left by the last Labour Government.

    Pay Policy
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the Government's policy on pay.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the Governor's 17 per cent. wage increase on an already large salary has been overtaken by the rise for the boss of British Telecom, who received 43 per cent., for the boss of National Power, who received 58 per cent. and for the boss of British Gas, who received 66 per cent. in what has become a fat cat greed race? In yet another pathetic answer on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that he deplored it, but he was not going to do anything about it. Why not?
    Mrs. Shephard: The salary of the Governor of the Bank of England—that is the point of the question—is determined under the bank's 1946 charter by non-executive members of the court of directors. It is not for the Government to approve the pay of the Governor or the bank's staff.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Although I recognise that it is important that company chairmen should set an example in the present economic climate, has my hon. Friend heard of any examples of a reduction in income for some of the very rich people who seem to be seeking jobs in a future Labour Government? I am thinking of people like Mr. John Mortimer and Mr. Melvyn Bragg. Have they set an example?
    Mrs. Shephard: I do not think that I can answer that, given the names mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, the Government's pay policy is clear: pay awards should be negotiated on their merits according to the needs of recruitment, retention and affordability. People at the top of large industries and concerns have been appointed for their acumen. They should be sensitive to the needs of the times. I do not know whether the people who have been approached by the Labour party have such sensitivity, but I doubt it.
    Ms. Abbott: Does the Minister agree that although the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said earlier that big pay rises were the exception rather than the rule, a recent survey commissioned by the CBI shows that pay rises for top directors are on average running above inflation? How will unit labour costs be reduced when bosses are setting that sort of example?
    Mrs. Shephard: I repeat that the Government would expect pay awards to be negotiated on their merits. The Government have repeatedly emphasised the need for general moderation in pay settlement levels. That really should apply from top to bottom.
    Sir John Stokes: Am I alone in getting rather tired of the politics of envy? If I were employed by a firm, I would want the firm to do well and make money and I would want my boss to be properly paid.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am not sure whether that is a question, but I must say that it is an admirable expression of my hon. Friend's sentiments.

    Inflation
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates for the rate of inflation in the first quarter of 1992.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): No forecast has been published for the first quarter of 1992; the Budget forecast was for RPI inflation to fall to 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1991 and to 3¾ per cent. in the second quarter of 1992.
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Are not those low inflation figures a great tribute to and justification for my right hon. Friend's low inflation policy? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is his intention and that of the Government to continue that policy to make Britain a low-inflation country? Will he comment also on the effect on inflation of an increase in public expenditure of £35 billion a year?
    Mr. Lamont: It is absolutely clear that, whatever measure one looks at, inflation is reducing. The headline rate is now down 5 per cent. from the peak, the headline rate minus mortgage interest payments is now 2·9 per cent. down from its peak, and producer prices have also declined by 1 per cent. in the past four months. Encouragingly, too, the rate of increase in earnings in manufacturing industry has fallen by 1 per cent. in the past four months. That is very good news for British industry and very good news for the economy. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opposition Members are not remotely interested in the fight against inflation.
    Mr. Winnick: As the Chancellor is concerned about earnings and so on, does not he have some responsibility to restrain the exorbitant increases that have been given to people who were on very high incomes in the first place? Is not it absolutely sickening and hypocritical that the very people who are receiving such exorbitant increases—66 per cent. and even more in some instances—are preaching to their work forces about moderating wage claims? Is not it time that we ended such hypocrisy?
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made his views absolutely clear. Although Conservative Members have frequently argued that there is an international market for management, we take the view that some of the recent increases in industry are excessive and are unjustified. I do not believe that it is the purpose or function of government to interfere by rule of law in those matters.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who price themselves out of the market, whether they be the chairman of a company or the lowest-paid employee, will lose their jobs?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I referred to the decline in the rate of increase in manufacturing earnings, which is good news for jobs and for output.

    Bank of England Governor
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss economic matters.
    Mr. Mellor: As the House has already been advised. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.
    Mr. Lofthouse: In view of the Chancellor's claim today to the Tory ladies that Britain is on its way to a low-inflation economy, what level of inflation does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think will be safe before we can reduce interest rates to a level that will restore the confidence of manufacturing industry, the CBI and others?
    Mr. Mellor: That question is entirely inconsistent with the commitment of the Labour party to be in the ERM.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Just answer it.
    Mr. Mellor: I am answering the question. The level of interest rates is reduced as is consistent with bearing down on inflation and retaining our position in the ERM. Once again, that question exposes the Labour party's desire to be all things to all men—on the one hand, ever so European and ever so committed to the ERM, but, on the other, every Opposition Back Bencher and some Opposition Front Benchers making claims that are entirely inconsistent with that commitment.
    Sir Ian Stewart: Have my right hon. and learned Friend and the Governor of the Bank of England done any calculations to see what would happen if the Government spent £35 billion extra in public expenditure and could not finance it out of taxation? What would be the effect on interest rates and funding if such a programme were followed?
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If extra expenditure on that scale was incurred—we await the Labour party's statement about which of its pledges it wishes to disown—and was put not on to taxation, but on to borrowing, not only would that inevitably drive up interest rates, but it would add to public expenditure because of the amount of debt interest that would be incurred. We took no account of debt interest in our £35 billion calculation. At least one City analyst has said that that would add £5 billion to public expenditure in the last year of Parliament.
    Mr. Sheldon: Yesterday the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that she still agreed with the decision to enter the exchange rate mechanism but thought that the width of the band should not be reduced from 6 per cent. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree?
    Mr. Mellor: I can only reiterate that it is the Government's policy to narrow the band when the time is right.
    Mr. Wilkinson: When my right hon. and learned Friend last met the Governor of the Bank of England, did he express any anxiety about the level of pay settlements in the public sector and the effects that they could have on public expenditure at a time of negative economic growth, or was his insouciance over his own salary matched by his public attitude to the matter? Does he have any feelings about the exorbitant and grotesque level of settlements in the public monopolistic utilities?
    Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt that sensible levels of pay settlements in the public sector are crucial, especially at a time of recession and rising unemployment, when job security in the public sector should count for a great deal and when people should have regard to job security issues when deciding what would be a fair increase in their remuneration.
    Mr. John Smith: No doubt the Chief Secretary is aware of the research, funded by the Bank of England and carried out by Shelter, which has revealed that a staggering number of home purchase mortgages—790,000 or one in 12 of the total—are now in arrears and that repossessions have jumped from 20,000 to nearly 48,000. He will also be aware that many people fear that rising unemployment will make the problem even worse. Does he think that that is a price well worth paying for Tory economic policies?
    Mr. Mellor: Those figures deal with short-term mortgage debts—with arrears over two months. High interest rates are, of course, uncomfortable for those who pay mortgages. That is one reason why we wish to return to conditions of sustained low inflation, which bring with them lower interest rates and lower mortgage rates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman still has to explain how he would manage to achieve that. He keeps advocating the fact that there is a pain-free solution to the problems of high unemployment, but when he was last a member of the Cabinet, he presided over rates of inflation and mortgage interest rates that were certainly nothing to be proud of.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of current interest rates in Britain and other EC countries and the margins charged by banks to small businesses.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): Three-month sterling inter-bank rates today are 114 per cent. Broadly comparable rates in other EC countries vary from 9 to 19 per cent. The margins charged by banks to small businesses vary widely.
    Mr. Mitchell: It is clear that British interest rates are insanely high for a country that is in the depths of a recession, but it is also clear that, despite the Chancellor's friendly chats with the bank directors, nothing much will happen about margins until interest rates fall substantially. Why does not the Chancellor admit the truth and say that he cannot do anything about interest rates because the Prime Minister took us into the exchange rate mechanism at an overvalued rate last October? When he is accused of

    1125
    GBH on the British economy, he can plead either "guilty but insane", or "not guilty because the Governor of the Bank of England is running the country".
    Mr. Maples: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench were listening to that because sitting behind them is the authentic voice of the Labour party, which always has been and probably always will be in favour of devaluation.
    Mr. John Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware of the extent of the pain suffered by small businesses due to lack of demand and high interest rates? Is he aware that many industries are still as flat as a pancake? Does he agree that the Treasury forecast that there will be economic recovery in the second half of this year is beginning to look over-optimistic and that any recovery will be slow and weak and will not help much before the beginning of next year? In view of the Government's success in reducing inflation, which perversely increases real interest rates, is there not a window of opportunity for reducing interest rates quickly and giving some benefit to small businesses?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has always been an advocate of sound money, and I am sure that he agrees with and understands the Government's priority for getting on top of inflation. That is why we have had to keep interest rates high. However, interest rates have been reduced substantially in the past few months. There are signs that the recession is coming to an end and I see no reason to alter our forecast that there will be a recovery in the second half of the year.
    Mr. Beith: What precisely was the outcome of the Chancellor's chats with the chairmen of banks? Has he, for example, persuaded them to show the rates of interest charged to small businesses on their bank statements? Does the Minister recognise that the root of the problem is that the banks do not face sufficient competition in their dealings with small businesses in the way that they do in the personal sector?
    Mr. Maples: There may well be a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, we all regard the way in which small businesses are treated by the banks as a matter of great concern. My right hon. Friend has asked Treasury officials and the Bank of England to look into the matter and investigate the facts. We are still waiting for the results of that inquiry.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of inward investment in the EC during 1990 was in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Mellor: Latest available estimates, based on a study by the European Community, show that between 1984 and 1988 the United Kingdom received about one third of all inward direct investment to the EC, which was higher than any other member state. The United Kingdom received 34 per cent., France received 18 per cent., and Germany received 2 per cent.
    Mr. Taylor: Those figures are extremely encouraging. Could I add to them the announcement made yesterday by the Invest in Britain Bureau that in the 12 months to March this year it recorded 350 new projects set up by
    1126
    foreign companies in Britain? That is because under the Conservative Government we have had enterprise, sensible taxation policies and the ability to train people in new skills. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that means that we need continuity of Conservative government in Britain and demonstrates the importance of not closing off any options in the discussions on economic and monetary union and of ensuring that Britain is not isolated?
    Mr. Mellor: Plainly, the current level of investment reflects international confidence in the government of the United Kingdom. Inward investment in 1988 was £10 billion. In 1990 it was £19 billion. It will be of significance to those who are anxious to see regional development that between 1987 and 1990 50 per cent. of the jobs created through foreign inward investment were in Scotland, Wales and the north-east. Although those regions are responsible for only 20 per cent. of our gross domestic product, they received 50 per cent. of the extra jobs. That is a sign of the benefit to the regions of international confidence in the Government.
    Mr. Wigley: On that very point, the Chief Secretary is clearly aware that some 15 to 20 per cent. of inward investment has come to Wales in the past two to three years. Does he accept that that illustrates not only the advantageous position of Wales as a location for new investment, but the importance of regional policy and especially of institutions such as the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency? Will he give a commitment that the Government appreciate the importance of those institutions and will allow them to develop and flourish?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says. It is a tribute to the people of Wales that once investment has arrived it is so successful. Demanding companies such as the Japanese companies have found the Welsh work force extremely attractive and are investing more and more on the basis of their experience. Wales has attracted that investment by virtue of the skills and application of the people of Wales and the assistance that the Welsh Office and other agencies have given, but the key point is that now that Wales has achieved the most diversified economy that the Principality has ever had, it would be foolish to put that at risk by electing a Government who would fail to retain that international confidence.
    Mr. Soames: What words of comfort can my right hon. Friend offer to major corporations that are willing and anxious to make substantial investments in this country but dare not do so at present because of their horror at the possibility, however, unlikely, of the election of a Labour Government? Will he confirm that if and when the Conservatives are re-elected we shall continue with the policies of enterprise and endeavour that have restored the prosperity of this nation?
    Mr. Mellor: I am glad to hear a regional voice from the Conservative Benches, too, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The key questions that people ask concern the impact of a minimum wage on British labour costs and the impact of Labour's tax increases on the effectiveness of British management and the ability to work in Britain rather than overseas. Those issues are the key to the maintenance of our position as a receptacle of major international investment.

    European Currency Unit
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the latest developments of his hard ecu proposal.
    Mr. Lamont: The United Kingdom proposals for a hard ecu have stimulated debate in the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union. A number of other countries have put forward proposals based on similar ideas to harden the ecu. Negotiations in the conference are continuing.
    Mr. Michie: As no one now takes the hard ecu proposal seriously—some think it a joke and others a mere diversion—would it not be wise to drop it and negotiate instead on the more substantive issues?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense. On Monday I discussed the hard ecu with the French Finance Minister, who was certainly interested in the idea. Not just France but other countries want to see some form of hardened ecu or a common currency before stage 3, and this whole area of debate was stimulated by our original proposal. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman claims to be an expert, but he is talking complete nonsense.
    Mr. Janman: While I agree with my right hon. Friend's proposals for a hard ecu plan, does he agree that moving to a 21 per cent. band in the ERM would make it more likely that we would have a single currency imposed on us?
    Mr. Lamont: It is true that when one has narrow bands within a fixed rate system, it is a smaller step from there to a single currency. That is obvious.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Chancellor will be aware that in yesterday's debate on Europe the Financial Secretary and the Foreign Secretary—the same has been true of the Chancellor today—were conspicuously careful to talk about a "hardened" ecu rather than a hard ecu. There is, of course, a world of difference between a tightening of the existing basket calculation for the ecu and the institution of a parallel currency for use throughout the Community. Has there been a shift in Government policy on the issue and, if so, is it true that the hard ecu proposal as it stood before is now where it should have been before—dead in the water?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is also talking nonsense. These are not different ideas that are a world apart—there are various degrees of hardening the ecu along a spectrum. These ideas all have a lot in common and we are not the only country to have expressed an interest in a parallel currency. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the discussions on some variant of the existing basket ecu are continuing and that other countries are interested in them.

    Consumer Debt
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of consumer debt in Britain; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.
    Mr. Maples: The level of outstanding consumer debt at 31 March this year was £511 billion. Because of changes in coverage, comparable figures are not available for 1979.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that there has been a massive increase, producing that £51 billion figure, in the last decade and that the Policy Studies Institute is correct to say that about 6 million people in Britain are having great difficulty meeting payments on mortgages or other loans? What steps do the Government propose to take to encourage more responsible borrowing and in particular the establishment of credit unions? Does he accept that our nation of savers has increasingly become a nation of debtors and that many families are now in grave difficulties?
    Mr. Maples: There certainly were some substantial increases in consumer borrowing in the mid-1980s, but I am happy to say that in the past 12 months the rate of growth of consumer credit has been under 10 per cent. I think that the hon. Gentleman will take encouragement, as I do, from the fact that the savings ratio has almost doubled from levels of around 5·5 per cent. to nearly 11 per cent. in the last quarter of last year. The problem is largely correcting itself, but we have to leave borrowers and lenders free to make those decisions for themselves and not tell them that they cannot do what they want to do; they must take into account the risks of incurring certain levels of debt and whether they can afford to service them.
    Mr. David Shaw: Can my hon. Friend say whether current levels of consumer debt reflect an increased and improved standard of living in this country since 1979? Can he say what would happen to consumer expenditure if a Govenrment were returned who promised to increase income tax and to spend an extra £35 billion per year in public expenditure?
    Mr. Maples: It is certainly clear that as living standards have risen and disposable income has risen—as we heard earlier, it has risen by about £75 per week for a person on average earnings—in the past 10 years, people have felt free to take on more debt. That has undoubtedly enabled them to spread spending over a longer period rather than simply relying on their earnings. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If they had to pay an extra £20 a week in taxation—to finance that £35 billion worth of extra spending—their living standards and borrowing ability would be severely restricted.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his estimate of the likely deficit in the current year to take account of the Central Statistical Office's recently published figures of the balance of payments current account for the first quarter of 1991.
    Mr. Maples: First estimates of invisibles are liable to substantial revision, but the next forecast of the current account is due with the autumn statement.
    Mr. Strang: I put it to the Minister that in the medium to long term we cannot depend on an invisible surplus to offset a visible deficit of £12 billion, which is the Chancellor's estimate for the current year. Among other things, is not the huge gap between our imports and exports a reflection of the extent to which huge swathes of our productive industry have been wiped out by Government policies?
    Mr. Maples: I do not think that that is true. For most of this century this country has run a visible deficit, which has been counterbalanced by a surplus on invisibles, and we think that that surplus will continue. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he studies the performance of manufacturing exports, and exports in general, he will find that what he is saying is not true. Exports have been rising faster than imports for three years. He may find it interesting to know that during the last Labour Government manufacturing exports grew at an average of 2 per cent. per year while under the present Government they have grown at an average of 4 per cent. per year.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not a fact that there have been a number of examples in the past when the original figures for the balance of payments and for invisible earnings subsequently proved less good than the reality? Is anything being done to avoid those unnecessarily pessimistic statements in the first instance?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. First estimates of invisibles are liable to substantial revision and in the past few years have nearly always been revised upwards. The initial monthly projection is based on very little information and it is unwise to pay any attention to it. We are taking considerable steps to try to improve early estimates of invisibles, which are published quarterly. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor, he introduced a programme of reforms which are being put into place by the Central Statistical Office and we believe that they will soon start to show some improvement. Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult to measure.

    Inflation
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how many months since June 1987 United Kingdom inflation has been below the average inflation rate in the European Community.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: None.
    Mr. Smith: Given that the Government's first, second and third priorities are supposed to be tackling inflation but our inflation is above the European average and, what is more important, almost twice the average of other exchange rate mechanism countries, what hope do the Government have of tackling unemployment and restoring manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged that in the lifetime of this Government the average inflation differential between this country and the EEC has been under half of 1 per cent. whereas during the lifetime of the last Labour Government it was about 4 per cent. We have got inflation down to levels far below those ever achieved by the last Labour Government, or which would ever be achieved by Labour in office.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people praise the Government for reducing inflation, but that it means that real interest rates are rising in the face of a deep recession? What prospects can my right hon. Friend offer us of reducing real interest rates in those circumstances while Britain remains a member of the exchange rate mechanism?
    Mr. Lamont: Real interest rates in this country are lower than in Germany, France or Italy. As inflation comes down, we have greater flexibility on interest rates.

    VAT (Education Establishments)
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to change the rules that relate to value added tax on education establishments; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend keeps all taxation under review.
    Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend consider an anomaly in the White Paper on further education which states that, once its provisions are made law, colleges of further education will no longer be able to recover value added tax on the education that they provide? At present, local education authorities and colleges of further education can recover VAT under section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983. Should not that continue, as both types of institution are providing similar courses of study to people of similar ages?
    Mrs. Shephard: That question is probably one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. However, in the recent White Paper, "Education and Training for the 21st Century", the Government acknowledge that removing further education in sixth-form colleges from the control of local authorities would have implications for the colleges' ability to recover VAT. The White Paper also suggested that that factor would be taken into account when setting the total funding for the new sector.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I shall depart for Luxembourg for the European Council meeting tomorrow.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a vast expansion of the Common Market regional fund would do little or nothing to bring about a convergence of the European economies, but would merely make the poorer parts of the Community dependent on hand-outs from Brussels? Is he able to say how much such a proposal, which is supported by the Labour party, would cost the average British family?
    The Prime Minister: I am not able to give my hon. Friend a costing on that, because it would depend on the scale of the funds transferred from north to south, but I can confirm that expanding regional funds would certainly involve increased taxation in this country and in a number of other northern countries. The only credible way to bring about economic convergence is control of inflation and the right economic policies.
    Mr. Kinnock: In view of the fact that the Bundesbank decided today not to raise German interest rates, does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to cut British interest rates?
    The Prime Minister: That is an odd question from the right hon. Gentleman, when the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said only last Thursday:
    "we will not be using interest rates for … controlling demand."
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister should try to answer a very basic question—especially since every responsible organisation and person concerned with the fate of British industry and British home buyers is calling for a reduction in interest rates. Did the Prime Minister read the reports published earlier this week from Shelter and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, stating that repossessions are at a record high, that hundreds of thousands of families are in deep mortgage arrears and that, in the words of the council's director,
    "Worse is yet to come"?
    The Prime Minister's policies are hitting every class of people and every corner of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Yes—on behalf of every mortgage payer in Britain. How can the Prime Minister justify continuing with policies that punish the British people for the failure of his own policy?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that, because we have succeeded in reducing inflation and have moved prudently, we have been able to cut interest rates five times, by a total of 3·5 per cent., without risking an inflationary devaluation in the exchange rate mechanism. That has meant about £50 a month off the average mortgage for mortgage holders.
    Mr. Kinnock: Unemployment is rising, firms are closing and the recovery about which we have heard so much is now going to take longer and be much slower than anything the Prime Minister has promised. How many more homes and how many more enterprises must be lost before the right hon. Gentleman stops pushing the country further into a slump?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should return to the real world and recognise the commitments that he made when he committed himself to the fact that the exchange rate mechanism was the right policy. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman wants to say that it is right to have exchange rate stability, but on the other he makes the inconsistent claim that he wishes to reduce interest rates whenever he finds it convenient to do so.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: When my right hon. Friend goes to speak to the women's Conservative conference later this afternoon will he bear it in mind that its delegates are delighted with the measures that the Government have been taking to improve the lot of women? The steps that we have taken include flexible working hours, more flexible nursery arrangements and better tax arrangements. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government continue to acknowledge the great
    1132
    contribution that women make to this country, not least by increasing women's representation in the honours list —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not refer to the honours list in the Chamber.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realise that, in recommending women in this country for honours he assures the women of Britain that the Tory party is a girl's best friend?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the vast range of policies that we have followed in the past few years clearly shows the importance that we give to the contribution made by women to this country. We shall continue to promote such policies.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mitchell: As the Prime Minister struggles to get his deck-chair up in a busy day of deck-chair wrestling, will he think about this week's trade figures, which show a large and increasing deficit? Can he cite any country which, when in the depths of a recession, showed an increasing balance of payments deficit?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman should know, first, the trade deficit is on an improving trend and secondly, the underlying export volumes in the quarter to May were at an all-time high—3 per cent. up on the previous quarter and double the rise in import volumes.
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is Conservative policies of competitive tendering, housing action trusts and the abolition of the national dock labour scheme that are coming to the aid of the city of Liverpool and clearing up the mess that successive Labour and Liberal administrations have inflicted on that city?
    The Prime Minister: Conservative legislation certainly offers Liverpool a much better deal. What has happened to Liverpool has been because it followed Labour policies for so long—often, I fear, with the assistance of the Liberal party. The effects of that can be seen by everyone in Liverpool and beyond.
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Morley: What hope can the Prime Minister give to constituents who work for as little as 1·70 per hour? Why is it that under the Government boardroom fat cats like the chairman of Wessex Water have had their salaries increased from £47,000 to £100,000 per year while the charges for consumers have increased by 28 per cent? Is Majorism simply extortion by the few and exploitation of the many?
    The Prime Minister: A few days ago I made perfectly clear my opinions of people who provide themselves with undesirably large increases. As for people on very low incomes, a minimum wage would leave them with no income but unemployment.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to note the report in the press of a Nottinghamshire miner who earned £35,000 last year, being among the one in three in that area who earned more than £20,000 last year, much to the credit of the miners, their union and their work rate? What would be the effect on that miner's take-home pay if the Labour party's spending plans were put into practice?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly aware of the very high earnings of many Nottinghamshire miners, which I welcome. Much of that is the result of increased productivity, and it is well earned. It is unfortunate that those miners would face extra taxation as a result of their hard work and success if the Opposition's tax policies were ever put into operation.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: Further to the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the report in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph that John Baker, the chief executive of National Power, has enjoyed an increase of £115,000 since 1 April, which is an 85 per cent. increase in his salary? The Prime Minister has condemned such increases. Will he use the powers in the Government's prospectus for the sale of National Power and PowerGen, or is the right hon. Gentleman yet again all talk and no action?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should read the prospectus more carefully. It makes it perfectly clear that we have given an undertaking not to interfere in the commercial decisions of a company. It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman thinks it a light matter to break the contract into which we have entered.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is widely accepted that minimum wage legislation would destroy upwards of 1 million jobs? Will he also confirm that such minimum wage legislation would have an impact upon the weakest in society—the disabled, the unskilled and the young, precisely those sectors of society which Labour professes to champion but which it is now so cynically betraying?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that the vast majority of people also agree with him. The latest staging post for the Opposition's stance on this matter was set out rather hilariously in a letter this morning from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said:
    1134
    "I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have simply accepted that econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact".
    Those words would make a weasel blush.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the dismay in Wales last week when the Government published their Green Paper on the future structures of government? That dismay arose because there was nothing in the Green Paper about the all-Wales level of democracy, despite the fact that the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Association of Welsh Districts and every political party in Wales except the Conservatives support that, and that three of the six Welsh Conservative Members also support such a policy. Will the Prime Minister look at this again to try to get some all-Wales democracy?
    The Prime Minister: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, our policy has not been to go in the direction that he proposes. I shall examine and discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but it is unlikely that we shall change our present posture.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to the fate of 12-year-old Maria and 10-year-old Anna Gordievsky? Will he continue to take every opportunity to make plain to the President of the USSR, to visiting Russian Members of Parliament and to the world's press that one of the ways in which we shall judge the new USSR is whether the KGB will let those two young children come to Britain to join their father?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that I have personally taken this matter up with President Gorbachev in the past. I shall do so again when next we meet, and the matter is frequently raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with his counterpart and at official level with the Soviet authorities.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the Prime Minister aware that in a recent answer to a parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibilities for industry, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), revealed that 76 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in the Paisley postcode area had been lost between 1979 and 1989? He will be aware that things have become far worse since. Does he agree that that is an unacceptable level of economic and social disaster, or does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a price well worth paying?
    The Prime Minister: All levels of unemployment are a matter for distress and regret. The only way to ensure that we create jobs that are permanent and are sustained is to have the right economic policies to get inflation down, and to keep it down. There is no other way of ensuring job security for the future. It may sometimes be difficult and uncomfortable, but it is the right policy, and it is the policy to which we shall stick.
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he will go to the summit tomorrow with the good wishes and goodwill of all Conservative Members? Given the clearly expressed views of the House yesterday and his own views against the federal super-state, does he agree that the Opposition abdicated their national duty by dividing the House on the matter yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: I am always grateful to have my hon. Friend's support on these matters. I agree about the irrelevance and irresponsibility of the position that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen took yesterday. It was adequately described in many national newspapers this morning.

Yugoslavia
3.31 pm
Mr. Peter Fry(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Yugoslavia and Her Majesty's Government's policy towards it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): As hon. Members will know, the Yugoslav republics of Croatia and Slovenia issued declarations of independence on the evening of 25 June. The Yugoslav federal authorities responded by declaring those declarations illegal and by mobilising military units in both republics. The extent of those deployments is unclear, but their primary purpose seems to be to maintain federal control of Slovenia's borders. The three airports in Slovenia are closed. A small number of deaths have been reported in Croatia from clashes between the police and the Serbian community. The level of tension is now dangerously high.
The Slovene and Croat leaders deny that they intend to secede and say that they are willing to continue negotiations with the other republics. We welcome their willingness to persevere in the search for new constitutional arrangements.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary expect to discuss the crisis with our European Community colleagues in Luxembourg tomorrow. Our primary purpose will be to use every means at our disposal to urge the Yugoslav republics to avoid bloodshed and to resolve their differences through negotiation. We stand by the declaration that was issued by the 35 countries of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Berlin on 19 June, which stressed that the way out of the present difficult impasse should be found through democratic development, without recourse to the use of force and in conformity with Yugoslavia's legal and constitutional procedures.
I believe that the Slovene and Croat leaderships should seek their future in the framework of a single reformed Yugoslav state, based on consent, within the country's existing borders. The form of that state can be decided only by the Yugoslav peoples. With our European Community partners, we stand ready to give any practical assistance that the Yugoslays may need to achieve that aim.
Mr. Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Will he join me in expressing concern and sympathy for all the peoples of Yugoslavia? Will he confirm that it is the Government's view that, if widespread civil disturbance is to be avoided and international confidence restored in that country, there must be many more concessions and compromises by all the parties and all the republics in Yugoslavia? That is necessary if legitimate individual liberties and reasonable freedom of choice are to be ensured.
What advice is my hon. Friend giving the many British subjects who are on holiday in Yugoslavia or are contemplating going there over the next few weeks?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in expressing concern and sympathy about the
1138
developments in Yugoslavia. As I said, the future of Yugoslavia is a matter for the Yugoslav peoples. Of course, we will do everything we can to help in any way if requested by the Yugoslav peoples.
At present, we do not think that it is necessary to advise those who are on holiday to leave. However, our advice is that all non-essential visits to Yugoslavia should be postponed. We are, of course, reviewing the situation on a day-to-day basis.
Sir David Steel: Does the Minister recognise that some of us believe that Yugoslavia is a prime example of a failure to apply federal principles and that the imposition of a centralised, autocratic state may give way to better arrangements as the British Government wish?
Will the Minister make it clear at the Council of Ministers meeting that, if the military uses force against or slaughters the people of Yugoslavia, that will lead not only to the cessation of western help but to the country's immediate expulsion from observer status at the Council of Europe?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that it would be particularly helpful if this afternoon we discussed the future of Yugoslavia along the lines which he suggested. However, I can confirm that over the past six months we have repeatedly made it clear to the Yugoslav authorities that we would deplore the use, or the threat, of force to intimidate or coerce the democratically elected Governments of Slovenia and Croatia. I must add, however, that the Yugoslav federal army might have, under the constitution, a role in restoring order if there were widespread civil unrest.
Mr. David Howell: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the fragmentation of Yugoslavia may have its dangers, we should be careful about the kind of unity we back? The unity that is sought has a brutal and reactionary side to it. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should perhaps analyse that carefully and realise that Slovenia and Croatia deserve some sympathy in their desire to escape from that domination? My hon. Friend speaks of a reformed Yugoslavia. That is the right emphasis, rather than just blandly supporting the present attempts at imposing unity on the Croatian and Slovenian people.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We and our western partners have a clear preference for the continuation of a single Yugoslav political entity—those words are carefully chosen and are capable of being developed and further interpreted. I can confirm that we are concerned at persistent human rights abuses in some parts of Yugoslavia, notably in the Albanian province of Kosovo.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: What is being done about our citizens who are on holiday in Yugoslavia? In my experienced, there is much brutality hidden in the various republics. If any of my people were there, I would want to be sure that there were contingency plans to get them out.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already answered a question about that, but I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman

1139
that, although our advice is that those people on holiday in Yugoslavia need not leave as of this moment, that position is reviewed on a daily basis.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that the principle of self-determination of freely and democratically elected Governments is one which the Foreign Office should not treat lightly, and that if there is to be condemnation of any course of action it should be a condemnation of sabre rattling and the coercive use of force by the central power, in this case the central power of Yugoslavia? If the wishes of the freely elected Governments of Croatia and Slovenia are ignored, that precedent will re-echo around eastern Europe, and it will not do that cause of democracy any good at all.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said earlier, it was very much in the minds of the 35 countries of the CSCE meeting in Berlin that the way out of the difficult impasse should be found through democratic development, and we are very mindful of the need to respect that aspiration.
Mr. David Trimble: Does the Minister see a parallel between the position of the northern republics of Yugoslavia and that of the Baltic states? In both cases, democratic Governments are trying to break free from former communist states, and the former communist states are using force to prevent that. Is it not sad that in both cases this Government are, in effect, lining up behind the former communist regime to obstruct democracy?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We can all develop our ideas in discussions with our Yugoslav friends and contacts. I said —and I reiterate—that I do not think that it would be wise to debate these matters on the Floor of the House in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. John Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that the tragic events in Yugoslavia highlight the general threat of mass immigration from the Balkans and the Soviet Union into the European Economic Community? Will he assure the House that the Government will continue to resist the policy of a free flow of immigrants across national borders within the EEC and that they are also taking contingency measures to plan for mass immigration into the EEC, especially as regards the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that although my hon. Friend's point is very important, I do not think that it would be right to pursue it this afternoon.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I shall accept four more questions, and then we must move on.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Does the Minister believe that there is a Yugoslavian people, or does he accept that there are several quite distinct peoples locked together in an artificial nation created by the great power politics of this century, and that it does not work and has
1140
not worked? Why do we not accept that the Slovene and Croat peoples have the same right to their own political and cultural identity and freedom as we have demanded for ourselves? Why are the Government propping up a bankrupt concept created by great power politics at the end of the first world war?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is important to recognise that the future of Yugoslavia must be for the Yugoslav people to decide, and everything that we say in the House must respect that fact. We should be happy to assist the Yugoslav people to develop their country in whatever way the constituent parts see fit.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend accept that some people believe that if countries such as Yugoslavia, Ethiopia or the Soviet Union want to break up we should let them get on with it, and that it is none of our business?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The important point made by my hon. Friend is that it is a matter for the people of the countries involved. I accept that, but if we can play a part through whatever institutions are available in helping them peacefully to that end if they so wish, it would be sensible to do so.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that any crass analysis of what Yugoslavia is or is not must be balanced by the reality that even this century, great brutality has often occurred between the peoples who make up the state of Yugoslavia, and that the Stalinist regime and the regimes that have followed it have also served to mix up ethnic groups within Yugoslavia? There is no easy answer within each of the states that make up Yugoslavia. We must look very carefully before we come up with any facile recognition of the emerging states to ensure that human rights inside them are far better than they were within the state of Yugoslavia as a whole.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has reminded us that the situation in that part of the world has been a cause of many troubles in Europe this century. I heartily agree with that and I have no intention of trying to solve the problem on my feet this afternoon.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: May I endorse completely the Government's approach on the matter, which is also, as the Minister has pointed out, the approach of the European Community and of the United States Administration? It is that there is nothing to be gained for Europe, for European security or for the different peoples of Yugoslavia from the break-up of that country or from the instability that would flow from the Balkans to the rest of Europe. It is facile to create an analogy between the Baltic states, which were annexed against their will by the Soviet Union, and the constituent republics of Yugoslavia, which came together voluntarily. If there is to be any change in the structure of Yugoslavia, it must be done by the free agreement of the constituent parts of Yugoslavia under its federal framework.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support and I confirm what he says. Clearly, we shall all have to await developments to see how we can assist all the Yugoslav people in their future.

Business of the House
3.46 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 JULY—Debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Church of England (General Synod) Measures.
TUESDAY 2 JULY—Opposition day (16th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate described as "The Housing Crisis". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Conduct of Affairs in the Privatised Electricity and Gas Industries". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of the Severn Bridges Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 JULY—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on aid to Iraqi refugees, followed by a debate on future levels of employment and unemployment.
Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 4 JULY—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on the steel industry, assistance to redundant steel workers, and Scottish Enterprise, followed by a debate on the waiting list initiative.
Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
At ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 5 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 8 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Road Traffic Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 3 July to consider European Community Document No. 4466/91 relating to informing and consulting employees.
Wednesday 3 July
Estimates
Estimates class II, vote 5, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—Overseas Development and Administration: Overseas Aid so far as it relates to aid to Iraqi refugees.
Relevant document: Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee: Aid to Iraqi Refugees, Session 1990–91 (HC 528) (to be published Monday 1 July).
Class VI, vote 1, Department of Employment: Programmes and central services and class VI, vote 2, Department of Employment: Employment Service so far as they relate to future prospects for levels of employment and unemployment.
Relevant document: Third Report from the Employment Committee: Future Prospects for levels of employment and unemployment, Session 1990–91 (HC 228).
Thursday 4 July
Estimates
Class IV, vote 1, Department of Trade and Industry: regional and selective assistance, suppport for aerospace, shipbuilding and steel and class XV, vote 3, training programmes and industrial support, Scotland, so far as they relate to the steel industry, assistance to redundant steel workers, and Scottish Enterprise.
Relevant document: Second Report from the Trade and Industry Committee: British Steel—Ravenscraig and Clydesdale, Session 1990–91 (HC 63) and Second Special Report: British Steel—Ravenscraig and Clydesdale Government Observations on the Second Report, Session 1990–91 (HC 473).
Class XIII, vote 1, hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England and class XVI, vote 8, hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, Wales, so far as they relate to the Waiting List Initiative.
Relevant document: First Report from the Health Committee. Public Expenditure and Health Services: Waiting Lists Session 1990–91 (HC 429—i); Minutes of Evidence from the Welsh Affairs Committee Session 1990–91 (HC 390—i to iii).
[Wednesday 3 July
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document
4466/91 Informing and Consulting Employees (European Works Councils)
Relevant report from European Legislation Committee HC 29—xv (1990–91)]
Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House assure us that, when the Prime Minister returns From Luxembourg next week, we shall have an oral statement in the Chamber so that hon. Members of all parties not only can hear the report from the Prime Minister on the important meeting but have an opportunity to put questions to him?
May we be assured that, when we have the Opposition Supply day debate on nationalised industries which have been privatised and which have resulted in the creation of private monopoly powers, the Minister speaking for the Government will have something more to say than the Prime Minister has yet been able to manage about the grotesque abuse of those private monopoly powers and about the abuse of consumers, shown most flagrantly in the past few weeks by the enormous salary increases that people in charge of those industries have awarded themselves? Many more private monopoly industries are to report in the next few weeks. May we have an end to the abuse of their private monopoly powers and a little more defence of consumers who, after all, have no choice in the matter—and, apparently, no protection from the Government either?
On a lighter note, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the weather? The whole country is talking about it, and some people are even blaming the Government for it. Perhaps we should have a debate and, if we do, I have no doubt that it would be appropriate for one of the right hon. Gentleman's drier colleagues to report to the House.
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will follow the normal convention in these matters and make a full report to the House next week.
On the second point, my right hon. Friend has already made clear his view, which I share, that excessive salary increases are not right. We believe that management should take the lead in setting an example of pay restraint. My right hon. Friend has also said, however, that these are commercial matters for the companies concerned. I am sure that whichever of my right hon. Friends deals with the debate on Tuesday will make clear to the House the considerable and wide-ranging benefits to consumers—from price increases below the level of inflation to considerable improvements in the range and standard of services—that have resulted in respect of many privatised industries.
On the third point, it is typical of the Opposition to call for Government intervention on matters right across the board. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of following the last Labour Government's example and appointing a Minister for rain, or whatever.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the term "market socialism" is an oxymoron, and that it is one of a growing number of terms emanating from the Opposition whose purpose is to conceal rather than to illuminate Labour's economic policies? May we have a debate on economic policy to examine the term, and others coming from the Opposition?
Mr. MacGregor: Yesterday's debate should have given us the opportunity to examine the Opposition's position on Europe and to clarify the 228-word sentence—not just two words but 228—that emanated from the Leader of the Opposition, which served to conceal the divisions rather than to enlighten anyone on the Opposition's policies. There will be a number of opportunities to consider various aspects of the Opposition's economic policy, not least when the Finance Bill returns to the House, at which point we shall be able to explore the very big increases in the basic rate of income tax to which the Opposition are committing themselves.
Mr. David Bellotti: Will the Leader of the House find time, next week or the week after, for a debate on the future of football in England and the blueprint that the Football Association has produced and circulated, so that the House may intervene in the disagreements between the Football Association and the Football League and so protect the smaller clubs, which would go to the wall if a super league were set up?
Mr. MacGregor: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman —as I shall probably have to say on a number of occasions this afternoon—that, if we are to rise for the summer recess at what anyone in the House would regard as a reasonable date, I shall have to refuse requests for Government time to be given to a number of subjects. We already have a great many commitments to cover, both during the remainder of this month and throughout next month. The hon. Gentleman will have to find another way of pursuing the matter in the House before the recess.
Sir Jim Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend been made aware of the fact that, in the Republic of Ireland this morning, there was a leak of an
1144
authoritative document about the MacSharry proposals on agricultural pricing? Is he aware that, if that leak is correct, and those proposals go ahead, it will be a disaster for British farmers? Can he assure me that, if there is any truth in the leak, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take an early opportunity to speak to the House about it as the matter is of supreme importance to our hard-pressed farming community?
Mr. MacGregor: I have seen only this morning's press reports. I understand that there are no papers or proposals from the Commission and nothing has yet been put to the Agriculture Council. I understand that we do not expect proposals or papers to emerge until about mid-July. If the press reports prove to be correct, it would appear that the package under consideration has similar features to those to which we objected earlier this year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be extremely assiduous, as he has been throughout, in opposing and rejecting proposals that discriminate against the United Kingdom's interests. I have noted my hon. Friend's request for a statement. We need to see what happens when we receive some official information about what Mr. MacSharry is likely to propose.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the Leader of the House persuade a Minister in the Ministry of Defence or a Minister of State at the Foreign Office to make a statement in the House next week about the news that British service men in the Special Air Services trained Khmer terrorists for six years between 1983 and 1989, something about which they misled the House and which in an answer to a planted question on 25 June, buried deep in Hansard, they now admit to? I should have thought that that should have been the subject of today's private notice question. I was surprised that the Minister could find time to come and talk about the internal affairs of Yugoslavia but have nothing to say about the grave state of affairs in which British taxpayers' money has been used to fund terrorism in Cambodia.
Mr. MacGregor: The private notice question was about Yugoslavia, and it was therefore appropriate to concentrate on Yugoslavia. With regard to the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, he will have seen in the written answer to which he referred that my hon. Friend made it clear that the United Kingdom has never, and will never, provide training to the Khmer Rouge.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that there is confusion in some parts of the House about the implications of a minimum wages policy. Does he agree that a debate on that subject would flush out a few people? Conservative Members are totally opposed to such a policy because we believe that it would cause chaos. However, some Opposition Members seem to believe that a minimum wages policy would be a good thing, although they are receiving advice from eminent authorities in the socialist party that such a policy could lead to the loss of up to 2 million jobs.
Mr. MacGregor: The estimates vary, but clearly there would be a substantial number of job losses. I agree with my hon. Friend that most of the objective comments and the comments from most economists, including some who normally support the Labour party, have made it clear that there would be significant job losses. My hon. Friend

1145
and others will have an opportunity to develop those points further if they so wish in the second estimates debate next Wednesday.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 882?
[That this House views with great concern the possibility that Hanson plc will soon be making a takeover bid for ICI; notes ICI is Britain's largest manufacturing company and a major export earner; believes a Hanson plc takeover would result in ICI being broken-up and sold off in parts to the highest bidder, which would be a devastating blow to Britain's chemical industry which does not need another forced rationalisation; notes ICI is one of Britain's few industrial success stories with about 70 per cent. of ICI's research being carried out in Britain with about half its manufacturing capacity based here, at over 50 production sites and with a further 200,000 jobs depending on its business in Britain; notes the chemical industry is a net contributor to Britain's balance of trade and that if ICI is sold off it may fall into the hands of an overseas company resulting in productive capacity and research and development moving abroad, and markets won by ICI being taken over; believes Hanson plc's record on long-term investment should give this House cause for concern as it has a very poor record on research and development expenditure in an industry where this type of expenditure is essential; calls on the Government to indicate that it would oppose a Hanson plc takeover of ICI, and refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as being against the public and national interest; and further calls for legislation to be introduced to tighten up regulations governing takeovers and prevent companies that invest in Britain from being taken over by unwelcome predators.]
That motion and early-day motions 997 and 1001, which have been signed by more than 100 hon. Members from both sides of the House, relate either to ICI's record or to the possibility of a takeover bid by Hanson plc. Does he agree that our largest manufacturing company—ICI —which employs directly more than 56,000 people, which spends 4·5 per cent. of its total sales on research and development and which exports more than 50 per cent. of its output is threatened by an asset stripper? Does he not agree that the uncertainty for that company should be removed? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement in the House to the effect that such a bid by Hanson would be unwelcome instead of his remaining silent, something that would not happen in any other European country, least of all in France and Germany?
Mr. MacGregor: I have said before, and I repeat, that no takeover bid has been announced. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to comment on a hypothetical matter.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has always made it absolutely clear that the principal aim of the House of Commons is to ensure that we can properly question and examine the Executive. Is he aware that, following the advent of the televising of the proceedings of the House, there is widespread concern and interest among our constituents in the Opposition's policies? Will he therefore, without prejudice to his next statement, consider whether we should debate procedure in the House with the aim of instituting a question time so that Opposition policies can be properly scrutinised by Conservative Members?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall shortly make a statement about procedure. It will be open to my hon. Friend to put that suggestion to the Committee that I am about to announce,. We are managing to find a considerable number of opportunities to expose some of the very substantial defects in the Opposition's policies.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has found that 1 million people are missing from the electoral register. Should we not discuss that serious matter to discover why so many people are missing and begin to take action to put the matter right?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before. I think that I am right in recalling that I suggested to him that there are other ways in which he can discuss this matter in the House other than in a debate in Government time, for which, quite frankly, I do not have time in the coming weeks.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my ten-minute Bill, which will be on next Tuesday's Order Paper. It is a matter of great concern because it relates to the loss of 420 jobs in Wigan, Skelmersdale and Warrington. The matter requires changes in company law. Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for a debate next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend time for a debate on that matter next week, but there will be opportunities, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. to raise such issues in debates before the recess.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week about the Leeds-Bradford electrification proposals? As the Leader of the House will know, loan approval has been given for the overhead equipment, but no approval has been given for the rolling stock to run underneath. One is absolutely useless without the other. Unless loan approval is given in the very near future, the price of rolling stock will increase, and the rolling stock manufacturer, Hunslet of Leeds, will face the possibility of having to reduce a skilled and dedicated work force.
When will the Government stop dithering, approve the programme, which has been before them for more than 12 months, and make a decision? The project is supported by all parties in the area. They want that investment, and they want the Government to stop dithering.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate next week. However, credit approvals have been reserved for the infrastructure work for the project, but resources are still needed for the rolling stock. We have promised urgently to consider providing credit approvals for the rolling stock in the financial year 1992–93, but we cannot make a decision until the end of the public expenditure round this autumn.
I advise those who say that it is too late and that there should be instant responses to such matters that one of the features of the Government, which has added greatly to the strength of our economy in the 1980s, is that we have had financial disciplines and proper financial approaches to such matters. The Labour party, which already would increase public expenditure by £35 billion, would freely go on adding to it. We shall be watching very carefully between now and the general election for all the additional

1147
spending commitments to which the Labour party is committing itself. It is quite clear that it has no financial discipline and no regard for the taxpayer.
Mr. Stephen Day: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency borders Manchester airport and that there was a terrible disaster there some years ago. Following an inquiry, a recommendation was made that smoke hoods should be introduced. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Civil Aviation Authority has refused to recommend the use of smoke hoods, despite all the research-based evidence, despite the recommendation, and despite the support of the Select Committee on Transport?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there have been reports that members of the Civil Aviation Authority take smoke hoods on to aircraft with them? Does it not seem that double standards are applying? Because of the great concern about the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority does not seem to be accountable to anyone—although it is technically accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport, it is not accountable to the House —will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on its role and accountability?
Mr. MacGregor: For the reasons that I have already given, I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on this matter before the House rises for the recess, but he can use the opportunities that are open to him to raise the matter in the House. Although I am not aware of these matters, I shall draw what my hon. Friend has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes an early statement on the levels of dioxin that were discovered and monitored the other day at two farms in Bolsover, as was reported in Hansard yesterday in an answer to a planted question? Will he also ensure that there is a thorough and public investigation into the way in which the dioxin reached that area, thus depriving farmers of their livelihoods? Will he bear it in mind that, at the end of 1990, the safety levels were raised by a factor of 10 and that many other farms in Britain might have been caught in the net if that change had not taken place? Will he ensure that compensation is paid to all those who are affected, and arrange for a statement to be made as early as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already said that his Department will be carrying out further food surveillance in the Bolsover area and undertaking detailed studies to learn more about the mechanism for the transmission of dioxins. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Milk Marketing Board has concluded that the milk does not meet the conditions of its standard terms of sale for producers and will not accept it into the food supply. We welcome that prompt action, which shows that the board is determined to uphold the highest quality standards.
As I served at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food myself, I know that the Government are determined, through our surveillance of the food supply, to ensure the fullest possible protection of the public. Although I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for another statement,
1148
such a statement would be premature before the studies are complete. I shall, however, convey to my right hon. Friend his concerns and his requests for a further statement at the appropriate time.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding the fact that we are in the middle of the public expenditure negotiations, can I tempt my right hon. Friend to break recent precedent and to arrange an early debate on public expenditure? I am sure that he will agree that there is widespread confusion in the country and, to a degree, in this House about how the Labour party will fund the £35 billion-worth of pledges that it has made. We should like to know whether that will be done through increased taxation or whether some of the pledges will be scrapped.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there is any confusion because it is clear from the costings that have been carried out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Labour party appears to have committed itself to the figure of £35 billion, or an extra 15p on income tax. It is now up to the Labour party to show how it will meet that bill or what it will cut from its spending pledges. We shall have an opportunity to consider such matters when the Finance Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to pursue his points then.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House initiate an urgent debate or arrange for a full statement to be made on the appalling crime figures that were announced yesterday? Is he aware that those figures show a 30 per cent. increase in crime in Leicestershire? He must recall that at business questions throughout the lifetime of this Parliament hon. Members of all parties have raised with him the need for extra police officers in Leicestershire and that I have presented successive Home Secretaries with petitions for more police officers. Despite the excellent work of Michael Hirst, the chief constable, and his police force, the crime rate continues to rise. Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for the Home Secretary to initiate a debate on this important matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not familiar with the precise position in Leicestershire, but in Britain as a whole the numbers of police have been rising, and rising considerably. I do not think that it will be possible to find time for a debate in Government time on the matter taking the United Kingdom as a whole, or indeed England, before the House rises for the simple reason that we have an enormous amount of business to do. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Keith Mans: As Supply days are allocated on the basis of the number of hon. Members in each political party, and as we have a party within a party on the Opposition Benches, would my right hon. Friend care to give consideration to allocating a Supply day to the hon. Members for Liverpool, Broad Green (Mr. Fields), for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) so that the House may have the benefit of the views of the Militant Tendency from within the Labour party?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend knows that I am not responsible for choosing the subjects for

1149
discussion on Supply days, as those days are given to the Opposition. However, my hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is noticeable that in the current by-election in Liverpool certain Members of Parliament are conspicuous by their absence and their silence because they do not want to frighten the voters.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has just mentioned me in connection with Militant. Clearly he wishes to leave the impression that I am a supporter of or sympathiser with Militant Tendency. As such an allegation is entirely unfounded, I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre will see fit to withdraw it immediately.
Mr. Speaker: That was exactly why I called the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The term "Militant", although not unparliamentary, is highly offensive to some people here. In view of what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) says, the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) should withdraw his comment about him.
Mr. Mans: I am more than happy to withdraw the term "Militant" if, indeed, the views of the hon. Member for Bradford, West have changed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is not good enough. Come on.
Mr. Mans: I withdraw the term, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Madden: I am most grateful to you for your protection and assistance, Mr. Speaker. I now turn to the Leader of the House. Will he arrange in next Tuesday's debate on housing for the Minister who will speak in that debate to tell us what he intends to do to ensure that speculation in private homes built with taxpayers' money is not allowed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private homes are being built in Bradford, Halifax and Bolton with taxpayers' money? They are wide open for speculation because there are no rules to prevent people from buying such properties and renting them out or selling them immediately for a profit.
Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will warn the Minister that I and other hon. Members will be chasing him on the matter. We hope very much that the Minister will announce some new rules to prevent speculation in private homes built with the help of taxpayers' money.
Mr. MacGregor: I am not familiar with the examples to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I do not know the background or the justification for the charges that he makes. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to a point that he might wish to make in Tuesday's debate. I will alert whichever Minister is to reply to the debate to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Christopher Gill: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of hon. Members were unable to speak in yesterday's debate on developments in the European Community, which was curtailed by the business statement before its commencement. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that I am probably not alone in believing that the issue is so important in British politics at present that the arguments and the consequences of the decisions which will be made
1150
in Europe in the forthcoming six months need to be ventilated in this place so that the British public can understand the issues? I hope that it will be possible for us to have a further debate on the subject in the near future.
Mr. MacGregor: I have followed the obligation that has been undertaken by the Government to allow a one-day debate on European matters every six months, normally in advance of the meeting that is taking place this weekend, as will be the case in the future, and I certainly intend to stick to that obligation. I am sure that there will be opportunities other than that one-day debate for issues affecting the European Community to be debated. Indeed, such opportunities will be quite frequent, and my hon. Friend will know that one such opportunity will occur when the Prime Minister makes a statement next week, following the weekend's meeting.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate to take place urgently on the plight of students this summer? Is he aware that New port borough council has expressed alarm at the fact that there will be a sharp rise in homelessness in the borough because of the cuts in the hardship scheme for students and the fact that unemployment in the area has increased by 50 per cent. in the last year, meaning that there are no part-time jobs? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme likelihood that city cardboard-type encampments will spread from London throughout the land? Does he appreciate that students face a bleak summer because they will have no hardship allowance scheme, no income support, no housing benefit and no jobs?
Mr. MacGregor: Those issues have been debated on a number of occasions, not least when the Student Loans Bill, as it then was, was taken through the House. Because of the pressure of business, I see no opportunity for a separate debate in Government time. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the subject, he will have to find other opportunities for doing so.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I, too, urge my right hon. Friend to find further time to debate the issues surrounding the Common Market and the two intergovernmental conferences. It would seem appropriate for us to have a debate immediately following the Prime Minister's return from Luxembourg. Yesterday, because of the organisation of business and the fact that we finished at 10 o'clock when we could have gone on til 11 o'clock, we heard only the most senior right hon. and hon. Members express their views. That shows that the debate was seriously imbalanced—indeed, that it embarrassed you, Mr. Speaker—when that would not have been the case had the business been better arranged.
Mr. MacGregor: Sometimes I make arrangements for business and find that we almost run out of speakers. It is always difficult to get the balance right. I was following the normal practice yesterday in allocating one day. There will be other opportunities to debate European matters and to question my right hon. Friends on the issues involved, and I repeat that there will be an opportunity next week.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House noticed that there is considerable traffic chaos in London, that the underground system does not work properly, that the roads are overcrowded and that there are high levels of pollution throughout central

1151
London because of the increased car traffic? In those circumstances, will he arrange for a statement to be made to the House about the Government's policies for traffic in London, including ending the nonsensical red route experiment and instead trying to prevent cars from coming into and out of central London and putting an end to any proposal to deregulate London's bus service, which would lead to even greater chaos?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement or even a debate. I think it unlikely that I shall find time for that to happen before the recess.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early debate on the policies and actions of the London Civil and Fire Defence Authority, which is Labour-controlled, bearing in mind its proposal to take away a fire engine—one of two—from Northolt fire station? Is he aware that such action would be to the enormous detriment of the people of Northolt, Greenford and the surrounding areas? My constituents want the fire engine to be retained, and I ask for an opportunity to express in debate the good reasons for their wish in this matter.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has already made his point. If he wishes to elaborate on it, I am sure that he will do so. If I understood him aright, the issues should be addressed to others than my right hon. Friends, and I am sure that he will lose no opportunity of doing that as well.
Mr. David Winnick: Although there will be a debate on the Army next Monday, may I press the Leader of the House for a statement on the position of the three injured Grenadier guards, one of whom is my constituent, Sean Povey, who, with his two colleagues, lost both legs? In that statement, would the Government explain why there is strong feeling in the country that the soldiers should receive compensation, on both sides of the House and among senior officers of the Grenadier guards, one of whose names I am not allowed to mention, while only the Government are determined to make those three soldiers continue to suffer, not knowing what the outcome will be in the courts? Has he seen what my constituent, who is now in a wheelchair, has said in the paper, about how he is feeling sad and depressed? He is only 21 years of age and has been crippled for life, but the Government insist that in no circumstances will they pay compensation. What sort of justice is that?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently referred to this matter, and I have discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, following questions raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members during previous business questions. The matter can be raised in the debate on Monday.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would welcome a debate on top people's pay, and especially on the pay of top trade union leaders such as Mr. Scargill, who is better known for destroying rather than for creating jobs, who pays himself nearly £1,000 a week, and whose salary has increased, relative to the number of members in his union, by 900 per cent. in the past decade?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point and, if he wishes, he could perhaps elaborate it in the debate on two industries on Tuesday, as I have no doubt that general remarks will be made in that debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House really understood why about 120 of his colleagues were kept late out of their beds on Monday night? Will he reflect, as I have asked his office to give him notice, on early-day motion 1031 in light of the fact that it was opposed in the House of Lords by those who knew most about it, the Government's own appointee, the Earl of Cranbrook and my colleague Lady Nicol?
[That this House, concerned that Lords Amendments, inserted at a late stage, changed the very nature of a Bill from that which was proposed at Second Reading and in Commons Committee, calls on Her Majesty's Government to delay implementation of the Scottish Heritage Bill, until such time as further consideration has been given to second-guessing of scientific decisions.]
Also, they could not get the vote of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—faithful Sir Hector—in the House of Commons, who had piloted the Bill through in 1981 and cared deeply about it. Does the Leader of the House understand that the issue is the double-crossing of a Commons Committee—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a continuation of the rather long speech by the hon. Gentleman on that subject, which indeed did keep us up rather late. Will he please come to the question?
Mr. Dalyell: This is the only way that Opposition Members of Parliament can challenge that exercise—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not criticising the hon. Member. He is absolutely within his rights, but he must ask a question.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House discuss next week the deceit of Parliament on Second Reading because the Bill that we put through was totally different from the Bill which was fundamentally altered in the Lords? Will he send for the most obscure member of the Administration, Mr. Tom Strathclyde, to ask why he gave in to some maverick peers—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we do not refer to members of another place by Christian names. They are noble Lords.
Mr. Dalyell: The noble Lord Strathclyde—aged 30 or whatever—who has never been elected by anyone to anything and who through a something muddle—I will not say it—has fundamentally altered the Bill on which his colleagues and mine sweated our guts out upstairs in Committee, has enraged the heritage organisations in Scotland and it is all the result of a mistake. Cannot the Leader of the House get hold of that inexperienced man and get the thing put right?
Mr. MacGregor: The debate went on at some length on Monday evening and it would not be right for me to go over it all again. As regards business, I understand, and I am sure, that the Lords amendments in no way changed the nature of the Bill as proposed on Second Reading, and the Government will proceed with the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage as planned.
Mr. John Wilkinson: This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House confirmed that there is to be a debate on the Army on Monday, and we know that there is to be a debate on the Royal Navy later today. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, although individual service debates may be of minority interest, they provide a unique opportunity for a well-structured examination of the individual services and the problems that they face? Will he resist any temptation—although I hope that he has none—to change to a system whereby just two days would be allowed for defence debates, other than those in connection with the White Papers on procurement and the armed forces? If that happened, the individual services would certainly suffer.
Mr. MacGregor: I note my hon. Friend's comments. I am aware that there are differing views on that subject in the House. This year, I followed previous practice, but we will certainly want to review it because, as there are differing views, it would be right to do so. There will be discussions on that matter through the usual channels, and my hon. Friend's views will also be taken into account.
Mr. John Browne: I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1017.
[That this House congratulates Paul Woolwich, Clive Edwards, Ian Pollard and all members of the Thames Television's This Week team on their production of Casualties of Peace; notes that it highlights the quite disgraceful lack of compensation awarded to British servicemen grievously injured in the line of duty; believes that Her Majesty's Government should bow its head in shame; and calls upon the Prime Minister in the national interest to instil forthwith an attitude of genuine concern, common sense and compassion.]
1154
Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Government continue to resist the payment of ex gratia compensation to the three injured Grenadiers they will be effectively challenging those mutilated men to take on, in a legal battle, the mighty Ministry of Defence? Their suit would, of necessity, have to be based on the findings of the board of inquiry, whose report is still classified—though why I cannot imagine—and therefore unavailable even to the guardsmen's legal representatives.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recollect that Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, assured the House that no one was to blame for the accident. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the board of inquiry took no evidence whatsoever as to why the 76 mm HESH blind round was lying on the range in the first place?
Mr. Winnick: That is absolutely right.
Mr. Browne: Is it clear, as was asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to both sides of the House, let me point out that those are detailed matters. The hon. Member may ask for a debate or for a statement, but he must not rehearse the arguments.
Mr. Browne: Is it clear to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, if equity is to be achieved, the board of inquiry must he reopened? If the Government do not order that to be done immediately, may we have a debate on the subject?
Mr. MacGregor: As I intimated to my hon. Friend, and as you, Mr. Speaker, made clear, it would not be right for me, as Leader of the House, to comment on those detailed matters. We are now talking about the business of the House. I said that the issue can be raised in next Monday's debate.

Procedures of the House
4.27 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): A number of important reforms to our procedures and working practices this year are already in place or under way.
First, the changes to the management of the House, following the report by Sir Robin Ibbs—which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) played such an important part in initiating, and which we debated earlier this year—are far-reaching.
They will make it possible for the House to determine its priorities, and to reflect those priorities in decisions about the budget for works, as well as other expenditure, and they will introduce a new Committee and management structure that will reflect, to the extent appropriate, best practice outside.
Secondly, the new procedures for private Bills following the report of the Joint Committee of both Houses in 1988 require primary legislation. As the House knows, the timetable following the consultation period on the Government's response to the Joint Committee, which was published last summer, meant that it has not been possible to prepare the necessary legislation for introduction this Session. The Government have now made their response. That matter clearly affects the sittings and hours of the House, and I have already told the House that we shall introduce the legislation as soon as we can.
Thirdly, on the scrutiny of European Community legislation, we have been able to establish the two European Standing Committees this Session, and have gained valuable experience of how they work in practice. They have also had implications for the hours of this Chamber. As the House is aware, I shall review the operation of those two Standing Committees at the end of this Session.
Many other procedural reforms are being implemented following recommendations from the Procedure Committee, including the new arrangements for oral questions. However, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House share the feeling that we need to take a wider and deeper look at our procedures and at the hours that we sit. Over recent months, I have consulted widely about the procedures and practices that determine the variety and amount of business dealt with on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and how long we spend on it. I have found that there is widespread agreement that the way we operate in this place needs review, and widespread disagreement on the solutions. I therefore propose to set up a Select Committee to look into those matters and I am pleased to say that I have reached agreement through the usual channels on how that will be done.
The suggested terms of reference and the membership will be set out in a motion which I will table very shortly. The Select Committee will be able to range widely, looking at the whole way we handle public and private business, the order and timing of business—including the use of timetable motions—the length of Sessions and the organisation of the parliamentary year, as well as the hours of sitting. The Committee's work will obviously extend into the next Session of Parliament, and I hope that it will be able to make recommendations that can be considered for implementation in the next Parliament. If a dissolution intervenes, it would obviously be desirable that
1156
the work of the Committee is continued in the new Parliament. We for our part would certainly wish that to be the case, and I hope that the same would go for those in other parts of the House.
I am particularly pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has agreed to chair the Select Committee. The breadth and depth of his parliamentary experience make him particularly suited to take on that important task and I am sure the whole House will be grateful to him for agreeing to do so.
I appreciate that Members on all sides will wish to consider the review I am announcing today, and I intend to provide time for a debate before the House rises for the summer recess so that the Committee can be established immediately thereafter.
It may, nonetheless, be for the convenience of the House if I outline now a range of specific matters that I expect that the Select Committee will wish to take particularly into account in its work.
I must pay a particular tribute here to the work of the Select Committee on Procedure, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The whole House owes him, and all the members of his Committee, a considerable debt of gratitude, but I think that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that to deal adequately with the remit I have in mind, it is necessary to range more widely than the Procedure Committee's remit allows. The amount of time we have in this place is determined by private business as well as public business, and the Procedure Committee can deal only with public business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has, I am delighted to say, agreed to serve as a member of the new Select Committee. That will ensure that the wealth of experience of the Procedure Committee as a whole can be brought to bear during the Select Committee's deliberations. In particular, I am sure that the Committee members will have regard to the Procedure Committee's second report, Session 1986–87, on the use of time on the Floor of the House, which most usefully summarised and analysed previous experience of morning sittings. The Committee will obviously also wish to obtain the views of all hon. Members with an interest in the subject.
Among the points that I hope the Select Committee will bear in mind are changes over the past 20 or 30 years in the quantity and complexity of Government business and European Community legislation and their effect on the balance between business taken on the Floor of the House and that taken in Committee; the growth in the complexity and importance of the work of Select Committees; the nature and extent of the demands made on the individual Member of Parliament, including, particularly, the volume and complexity of constituency business; experience of overseas legislatures, especially those which follow closely the Westminster model.
I should say finally that the review is not in any sense a party matter, or one where the Government and the Opposition should adopt entrenched positions. Our working practices and the hours we sit are essentially matters for the House as a whole, and I am glad that, in my capacity as Leader of the House, I have been able to reach agreement on establishing this Select Committee. When we come to our subsequent debate, I hope very much that the House as a whole will agree to the motion establishing this Select Committee without reservation.
Dr. John Cunningham: This is a rare, perhaps unique, occasion, on which I can say that I wholeheartedly welcome the totality of the statement of the Leader of the House. I thank him for responding to the request to make an oral statement on the matter so that, at the outset, Members could have the opportunity to ask questions and make points, although I recognise the importance of a full debate later on the terms of reference and membership of the Committee.
I congratulate the Leader of the House on taking this important, perhaps historic, opportunity to have a wide-ranging review of the practices and procedures of the House, which I hope—I believe that it is his intention—will go well beyond a simple consideration of the hours of sitting of the House. Our intention to review some of our more arcane and idiosyncratic procedures and the conduct of business in the mother of Parliaments will be welcomed inside and outside the House.
I join the Leader of the House in welcoming the appointment of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) to the Chair of this important Committee. He and I would not agree on many matters, except on what is best for Cumbria because we are constituency neighbours, but he has our full support in chairing the Committee. The Leader of the House said that after the next general election the Government will continue the work of this Committee. I assure him that that will be the case, although there may be some changes in personnel.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) asked for an opportunity to question Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman may get that opportunity sooner than he wishes.
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is a carve-up.
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says that this is some sort of carve-up. I thank the Leader of the House for his wide consultation and for giving all hon. Members an opportunity to speak before he makes final decisions about the terms and nature of the motion. That is the great value of today's statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has an opportunity now to question the Leader of the House.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Committee will have unrestricted terms of reference and that it will be able not only to examine matters on the basis of the status quo but to deal with the parliamentary year as a year? Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the important work carried out by the parliamentary Labour party review committee which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who is also chairman of the parliamentary Labour party? May we be assured that that and other evidence from minority parties or individual hon. Members will be considered by the Committee? Will he assure us again that the Committee will have the power to look at the workings of other legislatures? I join the Leader of the House in thanking the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for the work of the Procedure Committee on these issues.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the statement. I thank him for his co-operation on the matter and for the support that he expressed for my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
1158
It will be for the Select Committee to decide exactly how to proceed and what matters to cover. It is certainly within the Committee's terms of reference to look at the parliamentary year as a year and not to be bound by what happens now. As I said, it is open to all hon. Members to submit views to the Committee. I agree that the Committee will wish to examine the work carried out so far by the parliamentary Labour party review committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). I confirm that it will be possible for the Committee to look at other legislatures if it feels that that is appropriate and relevant to its work.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Members that the Leader of the House said that he intends to provide time for a debate on this matter before the House rises for the summer recess. In view of the pressure from hon. Members to speak in the debate on the Royal Navy, I propose to allow questions on the statement to continue until 5 o'clock. I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to questions and not to voice their ideas and thoughts about what might happen.
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the appointment of the Committee, whose powers to cover public and private business will be wider than those of the Procedure Select Committee. That is essential for a fuller review of our procedure. Will the Committee be able to consider constitutional factors, such as the size of the membership of the House, which is one of the largest democratic Parliaments? Will he assure me that the recommendations of the Procedure Select Committee will be carried out, as he has promised, and not further delayed by the establishment of the new Committee?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and repeat my gratitude for his work on these matters. The number of hon. Members who are rising shows that there is great interest in the subject. I shall therefore endeavour to be as short as possible.
My hon. Friend asked about the size of the membership of the House. I did not have it in mind that the Committee would consider that. I assure him that I intend to carry through the recommendations of the Procedure Select Committee, which I have already said we wish to proceed with, before the House rises for the summer recess.
Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the announcement that the Leader of the House has made, but will the Committee be wide-ranging? For example, when considering timetables, will it be able to consider fixed-term Parliaments, which offer the best arrangements to ensure certainty of business? Will it be able to ensure a balance between the Executive, which represents a party elected by a minority, and the legislature, which represents the whole community? Will it have the power to ensure that we stop the nonsense of our procedure, whereby we seek to legislate for the most minute detail in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, and devolve power so that we have less to do here and so that people have far more power near to where decisions should be taken?
Mr. MacGregor: When I table the motion, I hope that it will be clear to the House that I intend the review to be

1159
wide-ranging and deep. The House will have to decide that when we debate the motion. I am simply giving notice of how I intend to proceed. Most of the points that the hon. Gentleman made will be within the Committee's terms of reference. The constitutional question of the devolution of power is not a matter for the Committee, which will have much to do and will have to consider many conflicting views from hon. Members. As it must tackle so much, I do not wish to add other matters.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: As the problems are here and the expertise to deal with them presumably is also here, does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be no great need for the Committee to spend much time travelling abroad?
Mr. MacGregor: That will clearly be a matter for the Committee to decide. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is right for me to give it powers to do so. From the representations that have been made to me and the discussions that I have had, I have found that experience of other relevant legislatures is raised. It is right not to exclude that, but it will be for the Committee to decide what it does.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that this has the appearance of a carve-up between the two Front Benches? How can a Select Committee have a Chairman when it has not been announced or appointed by the House and when the Select Committee itself should elect its Chairman? Does he accept that when the report of the parliamentary Labour party review committee was discussed by the parliamentary Labour party, the overwhelming expression of opinion was against the proposals?
Mr. Stanley Orme: There was one voice against it.
Mr. Cryer: That is not true.
Would not it have been better to hold a debate first to ensure that the decision was completely open and the views of hon. Members were taken, rather than for something that appears to have been fixed beforehand to be rushed through the usual channels so that, I suspect, the critics of some of the changes, which will suit London Members more than provincial Members, are faced with a fait accompli?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman ran into the problem that I have run into in the past six months. The reaction to his remarks showed that there are divided views in the House on a number of the procedural matters. He is right that there are often conflicts between hon. Members who represent London constituencies and those who represent more distant constituencies. That will be a relevant matter for the Select Committee to consider, and I hope that it will reflect those differences. That is why it will be no easy matter for the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that the arrangements that I am proposing will cover all these points.
The House wants us to get on with establishing the Committee on a non-party basis. That is what I am endeavouring to achieve, but it will be for the House to make its view known in the debate on the proposal that is recommended.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Select Committee will include a Member of the 1987 intake, because, with respect, it appears that the longer we are here the more institutionalised we are?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that we shall be able to achieve a broad mix. It is becoming apparent that the longer we go on, the more the point that I made about the wide differences of view applies.
Ms. Harriet Harman: I welcome the Leader of the House's statement and the establishment of the Select Committee. Will he ask the Select Committee to bear in mind that the hours of the House are one of the reasons why there are so few women Members of Parliament, and that unless we change our hours Parliament will continue to be deeply unrepresentative of the country? I hope that the initiative succeeds. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a bold move, and I wish it success.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Her views on women in Parliament are well known and have been well rehearsed. If she is not a member of the Select Committee, I am sure that her views will be put to it. The Committee will cover that point, but its remit is much wider. Although I share her desire—this will be no surprise to her, because I have said it to her before—to see many more women Members of Parliament, I believe that it is often what happens outside this place rather than inside it that prevents more women from becoming Members of Parliament.
Mr. Robert Adley: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), my right hon. Friend said that he did not think that it would be appropriate for the Committee to consider the number of Members in this place. Will he give further thought to the question and say at some future date that it might consider that subject? He spoke of the increased work-load from Europe and constituency correspondence, but did not mention the huge amount of bumf that we receive from lobbying companies. In the meantime, will he provide a few shredders around the House so that we can deal with the problem immediately?
Mr. MacGregor: That separate matter perhaps should be considered by the Services Committee. I shall reflect on the question, but we must be careful not to give the Select Committee too wide a range of tasks by including the consideration of constitutional matters. It is clear from the views that are being expressed on the subjects that the Select Committee will cover that it has a big task. It would be a pity to divert it on to other things when we want it to report within a reasonable time.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Without transgressing on other parts of the United Kingdom such as Northern Ireland and Wales, may I ask whether the Leader of the House is aware that his statement would have had more efficacy if he had showed more interest in setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and had not been so laggardly? It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland on the radio the other day blaming the House of Commons rather than the Government for the failure to set up that Committee.

1161
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be a wide-ranging discussion and representation on the Committee? I know that there is a palsy-walsy feeling between the usual channels, but is the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) happy that the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) should maintain chairmanship of the Committee after the next election?
Mr. MacGregor: There are obviously a number of imponderables in that respect. It was one of the issues that I was taking into account. Having canvassed widely in the House, it seemed to me that there was a feeling that the work should be started and, if possible, finished within the lifetime of this Parliament. I believe that if that is not possible, the work which I hope that the House will agree to the Select Committee doing will enable it to be completed in the next Parliament.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the suggestion to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not a matter for this Select Committee. He knows the difficulties involved in setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and I have nothing further to add. The hon. Gentleman knows also that, after difficult negotiations, the Scottish Grand Committee is now meeting again, pretty regularly.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I commend my right hon. Friend on at last having the courage to grasp this nettle. Does he realise that many of his colleages and, I suspect, a far larger number of people outside believe that many of our procedures are ramshackle, archaic and absurd and that they bring us no credit? I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the work that the Hansard Society has done in this direction.
Mr. MacGregor: No doubt the Hansard Society will wish to give evidence to the Select Committee and its work will be taken into account.
I note my hon. Friend's first comments, but I should like to make one point to him and the House as a whole. It is important to take practical steps that will have an effect. I concentrated on that earlier this year, in particular on getting the European Standing Committees off the ground.
I am aware that, with such a wide variety of views on all these initiatives, it is easy for some not to succeed. It is important to think the matter through thoroughly and, as far as possible, to have support from the House so that the procedures can work. I am glad that that is happening with the European Standing Committees. I was afraid that it would be too tempting to set them up and then to give way to demands to consider a number of matters again on the Floor of the House, as we did before. That would have defeated one of the purposes of the European Standing Committees.
Another of the purposes of the European Standing Committees was to allow for proper scrutiny of European legislation, and in that they are succeeding well. They have also enabled the House to rise earlier, on average, during the past few months. That shows the importance of taking account of practical aspects and, we hope, steps that command a consensus in the House.
Mr. David Trimble: We, too, welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that its work would be wide-ranging. Will
1162
the Select Committee be able to consider the way in which Northern Ireland business is handled, which, I assure him, is a cause of general public outrage in Northern Ireland?
Will the Committee be properly balanced and comprise a wide range of Members, including regionally based Members? While the procedures of the House discriminate against Nothern Ireland, there is a distinct view which should be represented.
Mr. MacGregor: I very much hope that the Select Committee will be representative. It will be open to all Members from Northern Ireland, as it will be to those from anywhere else, to make representations on points that are within the Select Committee's terms of reference. It will be for the House to decide on the Select Committee's recommendations.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend is right to take credit for his initiative and to give credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). Will the Select Committee consider ways in which Back Benchers can have more say, particularly in debates on Adjournment motions on wider political issues, by not having such debates preceded by a statement?
Yesterday, because a statement preceded an important debate, many Back Benchers could not speak in that debate. An advantage of having general debates is that they would give us more time to inspect the Opposition's plans. In an abject performance yesterday by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Labour party gave away an opportunity. General debates would give Back Benchers a much better opportunity to question inconsistencies in the Labour party's policies.
Mr. MacGregor: All those matters can be put to the Select Committee. There will always be practical problems in trying to fit into any parliamentary day the many demands to debate issues, for statements to be made by Ministers and so on. I fear that those practical problems will remain, whatever the Select Committee recommends, but it will certainly be possible to put suggestions to it.
Ms. Joan Walley: I, too, welcome the setting up of the Select Committee, which is long overdue. I stress the importance of the Select Committee being able to balance our differing needs. We have to attend to parliamentary business, spend time in our constituencies and spend time with our families.
Will Crown immunity be part of the Select Committee's remit? To take part in proceedings, we need to have the resources to do our job and to have office space here. The conditions in which we all work are unsafe. It is high time that the issue of Crown immunity was taken up, too.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady may want to make her points to the Select Committee. Crown immunity would be outside the Select Committee's terms of reference. The Services Committee, on which the hon. Lady plays an important part, deals with such matters, and it would not be right to ask the Select Committee to go into them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall have to stop the debate at 5 o'clock. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman just walked in.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East has been here, although he has not risen recently.
Mr. James Paice: As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) said, those of us who became Members at the last election welcome the proposed changes. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), may I remind my right hon. Friend that fathers have families too, and that we are just as concerned about finding time to spend with them. The changes should relate to all Members, whether London based or not, so that we can all find time to fit in the many duties placed upon us.
Mr. MacGregor: In some cases, the Select Committee will have to try to square the circle. Conflicting views will be expressed on many matters by London Members as well as by Members from other constituencies. It will be for the Select Committee to sift those views and to make recommendations to the House and then for the House to decide.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House accept my congratulations, too, on this great initiative? I warn him that conservatives on both sides of the House will jealously protect their little niches under the current procedures and the jobs that they have accumulated while they have been here. Will he take care to ensure that people outside who currently regard our proceedings as a farce and as irrelevant to our democracy reclaim this place by having full-time representatives here, working with proper facilities and the proper number of people to assist them here and in their constituencies? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those matters are included in the Select Committee's terms of reference?
Mr. MacGregor: The Select Committee will not consider offices or similar support. There are other ways in which such issues are addressed, and we are making considerable progress in that respect. The biggest issue is how to acquire accommodation. That programme is taking some time, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is moving ahead fast.
It will be for the hon. Gentleman to express his view to the Select Committee, and I know what it is. It is legitimate for other hon. Members to take a different view and to make known their views. I reject the idea that those who bring to the House a wealth of experience from other employment should be ignored. I have always believed that that has a ligitimate role to play, but that is my personal view.
I do not accept that everything that happens in the House is bizarre. Over many years, we have built up procedures to enable the proper democratic process to take place. We are investigating whether we can introduce reforms to make that more effective.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger that the inquiry may get wider and wider and take longer and longer? Will he recommend that the Select Committee come up with an interim report, recommending a simple change of hours involving moving all our procedures forward three hours? We could try those hours for a month or two to see the full implications, rather than the inquiry taking a long time to look into all the implications.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is right, but there is a danger in asking the Committee to go too wide so that nothing happens. That is why I have rejected some of the suggestions made in the past few minutes. It will be open to the Select Committee to make interim recommendations if it wishes to do so. My experience is that sometimes the greatest progress is made by undertaking reforms bit by bit, but it is certainly not outside the Select Committee's terms of reference to adopt such an approach if it so wishes.
Mr. Ron Brown: I speak as a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Surely the so-called Select Committee is merely a delaying tactic, because we could agree almost overnight to change the hours of the House. Back home, factory workers start at 8 am, or perhaps 7 am or even earlier, so we could follow their example and perhaps finish at 7 pm so that hon. Members could attend public meetings and face their constituents to explain their political views and organise how to fight back against the Government. The real challenge will come from outside—from the working class —so the hours of the House will have to change for the benefit of hon. Members who represent the socialist point of view.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman cannot resist rambling off the point whenever he speaks. He has a very simple view of life if he thinks that one step could be taken straight away and that it would have the support of all hon. Members. It is clear that he has not listened to the exchanges that have taken place, which show that there is a wide variety of views.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Members whom I have not called that I shall bear them in mind during the debate on the motion that the Leader of the House is to table, even though they be Front Benchers, to give them the opportunity to make known their points of view.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: There are only four of us.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always easy to go beyond the allotted time on these occasions, but other hon. Gentlemen who wish to participate in the debate will be disadvantaged if I call the four extra hon. Members. I shall in any event have to ask those hon. Members who wish to participate to shorten their speeches so that they may all be called.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A point of frustration, I expect.
Mr. Skinner: You cannot kid me with that, Mr. Speaker. As the inquiry will be wide-ranging, I want to know whether you, as Speaker of the House, have been consulted, because some of us were not. I wonder whether you will give evidence to the Committee, because it would not be a bad idea. If so, perhaps you might tell the Leader of the House that if we are to shorten the hours of the House, let us also introduce clocking on, let us stop the pairing system and organised truancy and let us also stop the moonlighting.
Mr. Speaker: That will be an admirable contribution when we get to the debate. As for consultation, I am always ready to be consulted, should the Committee so wish.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

The Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Act 1991.

The Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Act 1991.

The Overseas Superannuation Act 1991.

The Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991.

The Crofters Forestry (Scotland) Act 1991.

The Football (Offences) Act 1991.

The Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.

The Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991.

The New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991.

The Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991.

The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

The Criminal Procedures (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991.

The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991.

The Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Act 1991.

The Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991.

The Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

The Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Act 1991.

The Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Act 1991.

The Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Act 1991.

The London Underground (Victoria) Act 1991.

The Llanelli Borough Council (Dafen Estuary) Act1991.

The Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Defence Committee on Royal Navy Short-term Savings: HMS "Challenger" and Decommissioning of Nuclear Fleet Submarines, HC 69, the Third Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 431, the Third Report on Options for Change: Royal Navy, HC 266 and the Sixth Report on Royal Navy Submarines, HC 369.]
Mr. Speaker: I repeat that there are a large number of hon. Members who wish to participate. I hope that we shall not have the situation that we had yesterday, when a number were frustrated as a result of having an additional statement, as we have had today. Could hon. Members please keep their speeches short?
5.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is my privilege to open our annual debate on the Royal Navy after a year of momentous events. Later, I shall discuss the consequences for the service of the greatly changed circumstances in eastern and central Europe, but I am proud to begin by recalling the Royal Navy's part in allied operations to secure Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. As last year's London declaration of the North Atlantic council confirmed, we maintain our armed forces solely for defensive purposes. Events in the Gulf were a salutary reminder of how dangerous and uncertain the world remains; and proved splendidly that our armed forces could act with vigour and skill against aggression.
The Royal Navy was well placed to respond at once after Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait. It has been continuously present in the Gulf since 1980, providing assurance to British shipping during the Iran-Iraq war, and had an unrivalled knowledge of the area, enabling it to play a major role in the different phases of the maritime operations which followed. In all, 21 Royal Navy surface ships and two submarines in support, as well as 11 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary were deployed to the region.
After the United Nations introduced sanctions against Iraq, royal naval ships played a key part in sealing the embargo. In all, Royal Navy ships challenged merchant vessels on 3,171 occasions in the period up to the formal ceasefire on 11 April, and were involved in 36 boardings. Once hostilities had begun, the Royal Navy's type 42 destroyers, HMS Gloucester and HMS Cardiff, were at the very fore of the allied navies in the forward air defence line, while Her Majesty's ships London, Exeter and Brave provided air defence for the mine hunter group.
The effectiveness of this air cover was shown when, on 25 February, HMS Gloucester detected on radar an Iraqi Silkworm missile, which had been targeted at a line of allied warships, including the US battleship Missouri. With only seconds to react, Gloucester fired two Sea Dart missiles and destroyed the Iraqi missile. Helicopters which flew from our frigates and destroyers greatly extended our fighting range. Lynx helicopters from HMS Gloucester, HMS Cardiff, HMS Brazen and HMS Manchester all played their part and their Sea Skua missiles destroyed many Iraqi vessels.
Throughout the operations, Iraqi mines posed a significant threat to coalition navies. This threat was

1167
brought home on 18 February when two US ships, the Tripoli and the Princeton, struck mines and were severely damaged. The Royal Navy's skill in counter mine operations is unrivalled, and five of its minehunters, Her Majesty's ships Atherstone, Cattistock, Hurworth, Ledbury and Dulverton, together with their command ship HMS Herald, bore the brunt of the work to hunt and destroy mines during the final two weeks of hostilities.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: What support did we have from the navies of other allied forces by way of anti-mine warfare ships in the Gulf? How many countries had anti-mine warfare ships in the Gulf when hostilities started, and did any run for cover when the war began?
Mr. Carlisle: We played the most significant role and we were undoubtedly the best in hunting mines. That was a tremendous achievement, and I shall say more about that.
As the climax of the conflict approached, the minehunters led the way for allied ships through extensive minefields to allow amphibious forces to threaten Kuwaiti coasts and to allow United States battleships to bombard the shore. Even with the conflict over, Her Majesty's ships Brecon, Brocklesby and Bicester, with their command ship Hecla, are still actively clearing mines in the Gulf.
Royal Navy Sea King helicopters were deployed ashore in support of the 1st British Division, particularly in casualty evacuation and logistic roles. Detachments from the Royal Marines were involved in boarding operations during sanctions enforcement, and provided extra air defence cover for our ships. None of that could have been done without the logistic support at sea provided by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
At the height of operations, 10 RFAs were deployed within the Gulf, while between them, RFAs Olna, Orangeleaf and Bayleaf supplied over 40,000 tonnes of diesel and 2,000 tonnes of aviation fuel by the end of the campaign. RFA Argus was deployed as a primary casualty reception ship, while RFA Diligence acted as a forward repair ship. Four landing ships logistic provided support both to the 1st British Division and to Royal Navy ships in the area. That was all a formidable effort.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: While the Minister is talking about the post-war situation, will he reflect on the possibility of the Navy's helping to do something about the oil slick in the coral atolls of Al Maradem, Kubbar and Qaru? His Department and the Department of the Environment have frequently been asked to ascertain exactly what is happening there. I hope that Dr. Nigel Downing and other experts will be taken there. Does the Minister regard it as part of the job that the Navy could now do to look at the ecology of the Gulf and to help those who are experts in it?
Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have given much help against oil slicks during the recent events. We will always consider points of that seriousness which the hon. Gentleman makes.
When the conflict erupted, the task ahead of our armed forces was daunting and the outcome uncertain. Before we could achieve anything, we had to ensure supremacy at sea. There was a threat from mines and missiles, and our helicopter crews came under fire from Iraqi positions
1168
several times. Crews spent long hours closed down for action stations, scanning the horizon for any sign of mines or missiles and always living with the threat of chemical or biological attack.
I had the honour in April to go to Portsmouth with the First Sea Lord to welcome home the three minehunters Atherstone, Cattistock and Hurworth. I found it a moving occasion. Generations of British sailors have sailed from the choppy Portsmouth waters to secure our sea lanes and to fight for freedom. The young men—mostly of an age to be our sons—on those three small ships had spent over 60 days on continuous duty at the head of the Gulf—six hours on duty and six hours off duty without rest. The great shells of the Missouri passed over their heads, as did the Silkworm missile aimed against us. They carried out this dangerous work with skill and tenacity.
On their return to Portsmouth, I sensed no boasting: all I could detect was a modest pride in a duty fulfilled. That conduct exemplified the unmatched quality of the men and women in the Royal Navy. The House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the skill, courage and determination of the men and women of the Royal Navy and of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary during the conflict. Those men and women would recognise that the highest praise is to say that they upheld the finest traditions of the Royal Navy. We say that with a great respect.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I note that the Minister seemed to miss out the Royal Marines, and I am sure that that was an oversight. However, I want to draw his attention to another matter. Would he say a special word about the commando helicopter pilots? I ask that, because on the very day that the Prime Minister announced in the House that no person involved in Operation Granby would be involved in Operation Haven, the wives and families of those helicopter pilots were bidding their husbands goodbye. They had taken part in Granby and were being sent out again for Haven. There is a little, understandable misgiving among those wives and families that the pilots' special contribution to Granby and Haven has not been formally recognised.
Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. We know that those helicopter pilots undertook a further term of duty with great honour and we pay tribute to them. I have mentioned the marines and I will do so again, which I hope will please the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My hon. Friend paid a well-deserved tribute to the women in the Royal Navy who served so gallantly in the Gulf. Is his Department having any second thoughts about the desirability of having women members of the armed forces serving on our smaller ships and submarines? I suggest that the subject should be carefully considered within his Department.
Mr. Carlisle: Most certainly. I will return to that point in my winding-up speech.
In recalling the achievements of our forces, we do not forget the suffering of the Iraqi people. We have taken a leading role in the international efforts to relieve the plight of the Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq. In this, too, the Royal Navy, and especially the Royal Marines have played an important part. Since its deployment to northern Iraq, 3 Commando Brigade has been carrying out a range of tasks, such as assisting refugees in their

1169
journey back down from the border camps, providing security and reassurance at mountain transit stations and helping the Kurds to re-establish themselves in their towns and villages. They have accomplished these tasks with fortitude and humanity, and—dare I say—humour, ably helped by air support from Sea King and Lynx helicopters of the Royal Navy. They, and all those deployed on Operation Haven, deserve our support.
Nor should we overlook the contribution made by RFA Fort Grange to disaster relief after April's devastating cyclone in Bangladesh. Fort Grange delivered almost 400 tonnes of relief supplies and carried hundreds of relief workers to remote communities during the two-week operation. Those operations illustrate the flexibility of naval forces in undertaking a wide range of tasks outside the NATO area. I could, given time, quote other examples. The conclusion is clear; we intend to retain that flexibility, and I am pleased in that connection to announce that we are planning a major task group deployment to the Pacific and the far east in 1992.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister is right to say that the Navy and the other services from the United Kingdom played an important role in Bangladesh. There is a clear role for the services in disaster relief, which is greatly appreciated and which provides useful training for the personnel concerned. The Minister knows that there is some concern that in the United Kingdom, the total cost of the operation is charged to the budget of the Overseas Development Administration, whereas in other countries, account is taken of the training value and a reduction is made accordingly. As a result of the accounting method adopted in the United Kingdom, a huge amount is taken out of the ODA budget unnecessarily. Will the Minister reconsider that? Such work is of great value to personnel of all services in training.
Mr. Carlisle: There are many charges to the defence budget. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an issue for discussion within government.
It is, however, the security of our NATO area which is central to our national defence and which must determine the structure of our armed forces. I now turn, therefore, to the effects of "Options for Change" on the Royal Navy, on which the Select Committee on Defence has recently reported.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Carlisle: No, because I want to get on and I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will make his own speech in his own time, and we look forward to his contribution.
We are grateful for the thought and effort that the Defence Committee has devoted to this important subject of "Options for Change", but I shall not seek today to respond in detail to the Committee's conclusions. The Government will respond to the Committee's views in due course.
"Options for Change" is a major restructuring of our armed forces which reflects and responds to the political changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the treaty on conventional forces in Europe. Those developments mean that the Soviet Union cannot mount a full-scale strategic assault on NATO. It would take some years to recover that capability. None the less,
1170
the Soviet Union still has substantial and sophisticated forces that could pose a serious threat against more limited objectives at short notice. The Soviet navy, for example, is still a formidable force. Although it is decreasing in size, new and highly capable ships and submarines are entering service.
The force levels envisaged in "Options for Change" were arrived at after careful analysis of the threat that we now face—both in political terms and in terms of a smaller Soviet navy—and the forces that we would need to oppose it. Although resources are finite, it has been the threat against us that has shaped our work.
The focus of our defence will continue to be NATO and its proven role in ensuring collective security. Britain will continue to be a leading member of NATO. That was an essential element of "Options for Change". The Navy will continue to play its full part in NATO's maritime activities —in the provision of nuclear forces, the defence of the European mainland and the defence of the eastern Atlantic and the Channel.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Carlisle: No. I should like to get on, and I have given way several times.
Against that background, we have been considering how to maintain the Royal Navy's capability in key areas. I recognise that hon. Members, industry, and, indeed, t he Navy itself, are keen to know our plans. But working through all the implications of the new force structure has been a very complex job and we have taken great care to get it right. I am glad that we can now make announcements on a number of these issues, and we should be able to say even more by the time of the publication of the annual defence White Paper. Inevitably, within the reduced force structure that has been announced, not every piece of news that I can give today is good, but most of it is. I also know that it is better all round to end uncertainty where we can.
First and foremost, we intend to provide a four-boat Trident force as the cornerstone of our defences and of our nuclear deterrent. As with Polaris, a four-boat force will allow at least one boat to be at sea at all times. We ordered the third boat of the class, Vigilant, on 13 November 1990, and construction of that and the first two boats, Vanguard and Victorious, continues on schedule and within budget.
Our commitment to the nuclear deterrent is in marked contrast to the flimsy edifice that the Labour party try to call a defence policy.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Carlisle: No. I intend to develop my argument. I shall give way later.
The nuclear deterrent question is of such importance to the security of the country that we must seek, if possible, to illuminate the shadows that the Opposition have cynically allowed to cloak their defence policies.
First, we can be certain that a Labour Government will not proceed with the fourth Trident submarine, which will mean, if they keep our deterrent at all, that we shall riot always be able to guarantee having one of the submarines at sea. I hope, too, that the skilled work force at Barrow-in-Furness is listening, for a Labour Government will deprive their town of work vital to their local economy. I should remind the House that up to 8,000 jobs

1171
at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. depend on the Trident programme, as well as many thousands elsewhere on sub-contracts.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Carlisle: No. Let me finish this section of my speech first.
Of course, the reality is that not one of us can be sure that Labour will retain the deterrent. Opposition Members avoid the issue. They dodge and weave and where, above all, we should have clarity, they produce fog.
In 1983 and 1987 elections, we all knew where Labour stood on nuclear weapons. They fought and lost on one-sided disarmament. Now, with their new designer idealism, they are fudging the words in order to keep the basic policy intact while trying to drop the unilateralist label.
In their 1989 policy document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has explained is the fullest expression of Labour party policy, Labour commits itself to putting all our nuclear weapons into disarmament negotiations with the aim of eliminating the capacity entirely. As the Soviet Union, for one, will certainly not give up all her nuclear weapons, that means that Labour is prepared to negotiate away our entire deterrent in return for a tiny fraction of the Soviet nuclear arsenal.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Carlisle: Not yet.
At the same time, as we know, some third-world countries already have, or have been seeking, a nuclear capability. The drift of Labour policy means, starkly, that a dictator such as Saddam Hussein would have a nuclear bomb and we would have none. What sort of deterrent is that?
In four recent letters, the chairman of our party, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has sought clarification from the shadow Foreign Secretary. On each occasion, the shadow Foreign Secretary has refused to confirm that a Labour Government would continue to possess a nuclear deterrent as long as the Soviet Union and other countries had nuclear weapons. I invite the Opposition once more to state that, as long as the Soviet Union possesses nuclear weapons, a Labour Government would also keep at least some of ours. That is what the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), the Opposition spokesman on defence, has signally failed to do.
The conclusion is clear. The Labour party is still wedded to unilateral disarmament. I now give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that it is pretty rich to make that statement today, given that it looks as though the Government are giving away their deterrent by simple incompetence? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has read The Guardian today and the Greenpeace report, both of which point to the fact that the Government cannot now guarantee that, for the next three years, there will be a Polaris submarine at sea?
Mr. Carlisle: We continue to deploy our nuclear deterrent. Any ship goes to sea only after clear
1172
independent advice from the Nuclear Powered Warships Safety Committee. The nuclear deterrent is secure in our hands. We know that the Opposition would give it away without securing any security in return. As I said, the Conservative party is the one party wedded to the nuclear deterrent.
What is more, the Opposition's policy on conventional defence would devastate our armed forces. Both in 1989 and 1990, Labour party conferences voted to cut British defence spending to the level of the European average—which The Times reported as meaning a cut of some £9 billion, or more than one third of the present budget. With that approach, we would not even have a navy, and hundreds of thousands of people would be thrown out of work the length and breadth of the land.
This muddle shows that Labour has no programme that could remotely be called a defence policy. It hopes that if it just hides in the fog, nobody will notice. In reality, however, the British people care greatly about defence, and we will ensure that they continue to have it.
Under "Options for Change" the fleet will still make the largest European contribution to maritime operations in the eastern Atlantic. In particular, we will retain a major capability for anti-submarine warfare and will provide modern equipment to keep these capabilities up to date.
Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend makes a welcome statement, as we are talking about the most important part of the Navy's conventional duties. Does he accept, however, that the single most important part of that anti-submarine capability is the helicopter? I realise that my hon. Friend may not be able to say anything on the subject now, but does he agree that the order for the Merlin helicopter is absolutely central to the Navy's future anti-submarine capability?
Mr. Carlisle: There are many parts of our antisubmarine warfare capability, but I agree that helicopter capacity is important, and I shall be coming to that shortly.
We will retain the three carriers, of which two will be operational at any one time. The ships have extensive command and control facilities which allow them to co-ordinate the work of other ships and aircraft in the area. They have of course their own powerful air defences through Sea Harrier aircraft and the Sea Dart missile system. They also have a valuable anti-submarine capability in their Sea King helicopters which we are upgrading from mark 5 to mark 6 standard. In the longer term, we plan to replace those helicopters with the EH101 Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopter. We have been evaluating the tenders for completing the development of Merlin and the construction of a first batch of aircraft. No decisions on those tenders have yet been taken. In the meantime, the first successful landing has been carried out by an EH101 prototype on to the flight deck of HMS Norfolk.
I can, however, say more about our escort fleet. As announced, the number of surface escorts is to fall from its present level of around 50 to around 40. This will be done by paying off older, less capable and more manpower-intensive ships while continuing to bring new ships into service. For example, we have already paid off several Leander class frigates, which are all over 20 years old. Two more of the new type 23, or Duke class, anti-submarine

1173
warfare frigates have come into service in the past year. HMS Argyll and HMS Marlborough join the first of class, HMS Norfolk, which is undergoing trials.
Seven more of those ships are on order, and I am pleased to announce that we are today issuing invitations to tender to Yarrow, Swan Hunter, Vosper Thornycroft and VSEL for up to three more. On receipt of the tenders, we shall consider the precise timing and number of ships to be included in the order. I am confident of keen competition for those tenders.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that the competition for the tendering for those ships will be fair and equal between yards and that the opportunities offered to Vosper Thornycroft in the south will be equal to those offered to yards in the north, with no added political or economic considerations?
Mr. Carlisle: I am pleased to give my absolute guarantee about that point.
We are now studying the design of a future anti-air warfare frigate.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the Minister be a little more forthcoming about the time scale? We have noticed recently that there has been some slippage between the announcement of a process such as this and the final placing of orders. Can he be specific and tell us when he anticipates the process being completed and the orders being placed? Frankly, statements of that kind are meaningless unless we have a time scale in which to operate.
Mr. Carlisle: Such a statement is certainly not meaningless. The invitations to tender have gone out to the shipyards today and we expect the tenders to be back by October. Obviously we shall have to consider them carefully before making a decision about ordering. However, we intend to order three new type 23 frigates.
As I said, we are now studying the design of the future anti-air warfare frigate to replace the type 42 destroyers around the turn of the century. That is a very important development. The design will incorporate the local area missile system or LAMS. We have recently entered project definition for LAMS in collaboration with France, Spain and Italy.
Turning to the security of our ports and sea lanes, we shall have a substantial flotilla of minor war vessels. The bulk of those will be mine counter-measures vessels. We shall continue to modernise our mine warfare forces. HMS Inverness, the second of the new Sandown class of single role minehunters, entered service last year. Three more of those ships are on order. We have, however, decided not to place any more orders for the time being. The tenders we received last year for up to seven ships will therefore lapse.
Further ships will be ordered in due course, but the size and timing of orders has yet to be decided. I know that this will come as a disappointment to the shipyards in question, and our decision does not in any way reflect on their efforts or, indeed, on the qualities of these excellent ships. None the less, I hope that they will be heartened by our decision to proceed with the potentially much greater investment in a further batch of type 23s.
The Royal Navy also contributes to the defence of the European mainland through amphibious forces. Along with Dutch marines in the United Kingdom-Netherlands
1174
amphibious force, our own Royal Marines are earmarked to reinforce NATO's northern flank in Norway. Third Commando Brigade is a light, capable, force, which can also be deployed elsewhere in the world if necessary, as operation Haven demonstrates. They could also support the rapid reaction corps if the need should arise. The amphibious force is supported by specialist amphibious shipping. We have the two assault ships, HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, and the five landing ships logistic, and the amphibious force has a dedicated fleet of Sea King helicopters.
Mr. John Browne: I am sure that all Conservative Members, like me, welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's commitment to continued nuclear defence and his very timely warning of the lingering danger of the Soviet navy. However, I am still waiting to hear what strategic change is proposed in the role of the Royal Navy which allows for a 20 per cent. cut in the surface fleet.
Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend will know that I set out the four roles of the Royal Navy. As I said, in deciding on the shape of the Navy for "Options for Change" we analysed the threat very carefully, and I described how the Russian navy has been reduced. In those circumstances, we felt that it was right and proper to shape the Navy as I have described to best meet the perceived threat.
Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Carlisle: If my hon. Friend will allow me to complete this part of my speech, I will give way.
"Options for Change" has confirmed the importance of the amphibious force, and we intend to maintain this capability. We plan to improve our specialist shipping over the coming years. We have been studying the best way to maintain the capability provided by the two assault ships, and expect to make an announcement very shortly. I can announce that we intend to refurbish the three older landing ships logistic very extensively. That will enable those ships to run on into the next century. We are now considering the way forward for an aviation support ship—ASS—to provide dedicated helicopter lift for the landing force. We still plan to order an ASS, but he tenders we previously received have expired and we are unlikely to place an order this year.
Mr. Churchill: Will we acquire new amphibious capability or merely refurbish existing capability?
Mr. Carlisle: We certainly intend to keep up our amphibious capability to a high and effective level. I hope very much that an announcement will be made shortly that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) in that respect.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Carlisle: No, I must make progress, as I have given way a great deal.
In addition to the Tridents, the submarine fleet will consist of about 16 boats.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way now?
Mr. Carlisle: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

1175
The submarine fleet will consist of about 16 boats of which three quarters will be nuclear-powered. This reduction from the previous level of 27, of which 17 were nuclear-powered, will be achieved by paying off older boats while bringing new ones into service. We have already announced the decommissioning of the nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines HMS Warspite, HMS Churchill and HMS Conqueror. We have also decommissioned a number of the older diesel-electric powered Oberon class submarines—the SSKs.
Meanwhile, the last of the Trafalgar class SSNs, HMS Triumph, is due to enter service later this year, and we have been considering how to sustain the new force level in the longer term. I am pleased to announce that we shall shortly begin studies into the design of a new strategic submarine nuclear to replace the Swiftsure class around the turn of the century. Based on the design of the Trafalgar class, such a submarine would incorporate significant improvements to sonars and command systems which are already being developed for current submarines.
If those studies can be successfully completed, the new submarine will also make a significant contribution to securing the future of both VSEL and Rolls-Royce and associates in Derby. That is by far the most sensible way foward for the development of our nuclear submarines.
Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister will know that I have welcomed the co-operation of his Department and the Navy in coming to an agreement with the Clyde Fishermen's Association on the notification scheme, and that 1 further welcome the extension of the scheme which the Minister announced on Monday. Will the measure be extended? There is worry about the need for notification on the north-west of Scotland, particularly in the Minches area.
Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her co-operation in working out a practical way forward with the Ministry of Defence. I should be grateful if she would allow me to answer her point when I reply to the debate.
In order to replace the Oberon class of submarines, we are introducing the first new British-designed SSK for 30 years, the Upholder class. The first of those boats, HMS Upholder herself, is already in service. The second, Unseen, is due to be accepted next month. Two more are being built. We are confident that those boats will be valuable assets for the Royal Navy of the future.
What I have said today amounts to a substantial package of measures in equipment—
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlisle: No. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman must make his own speech. I have already given way once, and I shall respond to him.
Mr. Foulkes: It is just a question.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
Mr. Foulkes: It would be much quicker. The Minister is very foolish. I could have asked it by now.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it quite clear that he is not giving way to the hon. Member. He should not persist.
Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is making it impossible for me to give way to him.
Clearly, the support area will have to be adjusted to reflect the new reduced front line. The balance between the "teeth" of the Navy and its "tail" should be maintained to get the most efficient support for our front line. To that end, we are conducting a wide-ranging review of our future fleet support requirements, and we expect to be able to make announcements shortly.
Mr. Allen McKay: On future fleet requirements, will the Minister say something about the south Atlantic and the proposals to take out HMS Endurance before 1995? Is HMS Endurance to be taken out and, if so, why? If not, will it be replaced in 1995?
Mr. Carlisle: I have no plans to take out Endurance.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I was disappointed that, in my hon. Friend's full tribute to the fighting forces in the Gulf, he did not give as full a tribute to those in the support services who worked so well and tirelessly to ensure that our forces were able to go to the Gulf and were supported there. Will he say something about our need always to have a strategic reserve in terms of dockyards, training and helicopter support? My hon. Friend will know of the wonderful service that he gets from Portland naval base.
Mr. Carlisle: I fully salute the efforts that were made by all those in the support side. I especially mention those in the research establishment who worked long hours to enhance our equipment.
I emphasise that, in implementing "Options", we have had to make some hard choices, but we have been determined to secure a Navy which will be more than equal to the threat that it will face. We believe that the future Royal Navy will prove to be a balanced and flexible force with up-to-date and effective equipment, and high-quality and well-trained personnel. Those qualities led to the success of the Royal Navy's operations in the Gulf, and we are confident that they will continue to be the hallmark of the Royal Navy in the years to come.
5.45 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am pleased to follow the Minister's wide-ranging speech, in which he made one or two long-awaited if somewhat vague assurances about future orders, which will be of at least some comfort to people in yards throughout the country. I join him in paying tribute to all the naval forces and marines who participated in the Gulf. In particular, I reiterate the point that a number of marines who were involved in Operation Granby are now carrying out a role of a different character with equal distinction in Operation Haven. That is a measure of their determination to do their duty. As the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) pointed out, it is understandable that there would be anxiety on the part of families that their loved ones should again be away for such a long time.
The presence of the Royal Navy in the Gulf was fortuitous. The Armilla patrol was able to divert its activities deeper into the Gulf and to afford the first vestige of a United Nations presence in the Gulf in the very early stages of the embargo. It was evidence of the allies' determination to stand firm in the Gulf and to make a reality of the early United Nations embargo resolutions. However—I do not say this in a carping sense—I recognise

1177
the point that was made in the recent Ade1phi paper by Professor Freeman, when he said that the co-ordination of naval activities in the Gulf by the Western European Union does not provide a tremendous example of the scope of the WEU's expertise in the area, as it was fairly narrow.
Some Conservative Members may try to tell us that the naval role in the Gulf was an example of European co-operation on a grand scale, but I have my doubts about that. I had the opportunity to visit the Gulf and was able to spend some time on HMS London. One was clearly aware of the critical role that the Royal Navy played, alongside other navies and in particular the United States navy. We must also recognise the tremendous role that was played by the minehunters in the Gulf. They provide a unique capability. It is true that other European navies have them, but they do not have the same scale, expertise or range of capability that we have.
The Minister did not detail the maritime strategies of the Navy in the North sea or its critical role within NATO. It is the second largest navy within NATO—the United States makes the biggest contribution. The Minister referred to agreements on conventional forces in Europe—the treaty is still to be signed—but CFE does not address the naval question as such. One criticism of CFE is that in some respects it is Eurocentrist, dealing almost exclusively with the central front. Obviously, if there are fewer troops in Europe, questions about reinforcement and protection of ceilings will arise. The maritime strategy is least susceptible to Europeanisation because of the interdependence of the United States navy and the navies of Europe, in particular the Royal Navy.
I am stressing this point as a result of what was said yesterday about European defence co-operation as part of our general debate on the future of Europe. We should bear in mind that three services are involved, and that the senior service does not lend itself to Europeanisation. Some people seem conveniently to forget that point when talking about a European defence strategy.
France has a sizeable navy, but it is not deployed within the NATO structure. I know that, on a 'nods and winks' basis, France associates with certain of our activities, but it retains its independence. I doubt whether France would be prepared to enter into a WEU-orchestrated maritime strategy. The whole thing is difficult to sustain, given the absence from the WEU ranks of Turkey in the southern flank and of Iceland and Norway in the northern flank.
As I have said, people choose to forget that three services are involved in the defence of Europe and that the new risks facing us are of a different character from the old threat, which was based on the European continent. The contribution that the United States and Canada make to our defence weighs against a WEU-type solution. Equally, we can dismiss the EC in that respect, because its involvement would alienate or make more difficult the potential involvement of the neutral EFTA countries.
We should like the eastern and central European countries to take that first step once their economic systems and the level of performance mean that they would be capable of benefiting from such involvement. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said last night, although many Opposition Members welcome European co-operation, as far as defence is concerned we should like that co-operation to
1178
involve not so much the deepening of the Community as its widening. It would be unhelpful to become involved at this stage in artificial European defence structures.
The Minister spoke about the size of the fleet, and made a virtue of necessity when he said that the changing circumstances in Europe were responsible for the fact that our surface fleet is now designated as numbering around 40 rather than 50 ships. Those of us who watch these matters with a wary eye remember the famous occasion when the Select Committee on Defence was informed that on one particular date only 34 ships were available in the surface fleet. That occasion gave the lie to claims about the availability of our ships.
I welcome the announcement of the Government's intention to invite tenders for three more frigates. I hope that that process will be carried through as quickly as possible. One of the most disturbing messages that I receive from both successful and unsuccessful bidders when visiting shipyards around the country is that the procurement executive of the MOD appears to have taken a cynical approach by allowing orders to slip to the right. Tenders are then re-requested, not just to delay the ordering of the ships, but to bring about a further reduction in their cost.
That combination of time delay and the request for a further look at the figures drives the shipyards to the point of desperation. There is a great deal of concern at the moment that the yards may be putting in artificially low bids for the work and that the quality of the work will not be of the standard expected by the Navy. Although that has yet to happen—I hope that it will not—I am not seeking to be mischievous because the Opposition have a responsibility to raise such serious questions.
I am putting my remarks in a wider context than I was able to do when I intervened, and I hope that the Minister will take the point seriously—if he does not, he will be hounded at Question Time after Question Time by all hon. Members with an interest in frigate procurement.
Mr. Peter Griffiths indicated assent.
Mr. O'Neill: I see that the hon. Member who has a constituency interest in Vosper Shiprepairers Ltd. is nodding. There is no party division on this matter. We all want to see the orders being placed as quickly and as fairly as possible.
One consequence of the diminution in the fleet size and of the improvement in international relations has been that the issue of the bases and facilities that are required has been drawn into sharp relief. Hon. Members of all parties and representing all areas are extremely concerned about the manner in which the Department has dealt with the basing arrangements and about the leaks that have emerged from the Ministry of Defence about the future of the bases. I am not speaking now as a Scottish Member, although several hundred of my constituents work at Rosyth, because I understand that the same question mark also hangs over Portsmouth and Portland. We all recognise that Plymouth will probably be rendered almost invulnerable because of its unique position, but the other three bases are in some jeopardy at the moment.
I urge the Minister to reach a conclusion one way or the other as quickly as possible. The strength of feeling in Scotland about Rosyth is evidenced by the presence on the Treasury Bench of a Scottish Office Minister, who is here in the hope that he will discover something that he has not

1179
been able to discover elsewhere. We know that the Scottish Office has encountered some difficulties in getting brought up to date on all aspects of this matter and that it took some damaging newspaper leaks for this issue to be raised at a level which alerted the Secretary of State for Scotland.
It would be inappropriate for the United Kingdom to put all its eggs in the south coast basket. We have major naval deployments in our northern waters, North sea oil facilities, and fishery protection facilities based on the Forth. It therefore seems sensible to retain a port in that area. I realise that hon. Members representing Portsmouth and Portland will make equally strong arguments and that the Minister will be required to make the judgment of Solomon if he thinks that there is a case for reducing the number of bases.
However, I hope that the consideration of this vexed problem will be at a slightly higher level than that of leaks being made from civil service papers, which suggested that the decision might be taken for the administrative convenience of senior civil servants and naval officers rather than being based on the defence needs of these islands. We need to have an answer fairly quickly because there is great anxiety in all the areas that are involved. Although "Options for Change" has drawn attention to the affection that the regimental system inspires in many communities, the links of our various ports with the services are of great importance and cannot be ignored. The legitimate feelings of the local communities must be taken into account.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not lead the House to believe that there is competition between Rosyth and Portland over possible closures. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, Portland is unique in everything that it does. Its work is not duplicated in any other base, so its case for remaining open is in no way linked with that of Rosyth. Does the hon. Gentleman have any happy words for the Labour party's prospective parliamentary candidate for the Portland area about what the Labour party would do in connection with Portland if it were in government?
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that it would be wrong for us to set one base against another. I accept that. It is one of the problems of the secretive nature of the review process that we do not know what arguments are being advanced. The debate is being skewed by the leaking of documents which give one view or another. If the Labour party were in government now and had to make choices, we would seek to do so in an open manner so that individual Members of Parliament would not feel aggrieved, as many people may well do, if a decision to close a base was announced in the middle of September or at some other time when we did not have the opportunity to make the final representations in the House.
In opposition one can promise certain things. I do not promise anything in respect of one base or another. I merely recognise that the nature of Plymouth is such that I cannot imagine that it would be under threat. There is broad agreement about that. If there are to be closures it could well happen—I do not have a constituency interest—
Mr. Dick Douglas: The hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest.
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) barely has a constituency, so far as I can see. He is certainly schizophrenic. Hon. Members who have a direct constituency interest are placed at a tremendous disadvantage, whether they are members of the Conservative party or of Opposition parties. The manner in which the review is being conducted—behind closed doors and dependent on leaks—is not correct. The matter should be dealt with as quickly and openly as possible.
I recognise that we shall probably not be given a decision today, but I ask the Minister to make every effort to ensure that he can come to the Dispatch Box before the end of the parliamentary Session and make an announcement. He should end the uncertainty about which base may close or make it clear that all the bases will remain open. There is tremendous anxiety in all the communities. An announcement soon is the best way of addressing the problem on an all-party basis.
The Minister was somewhat ambiguous about the reinforcement of Norway. He suggested that Fearless and Intrepid might be looked at and that some craft would be refurbished. I have participated in Navy debates since 1984. 1 have yet to hear a Minister tell us anything other than that studies were being undertaken of the possibility of replacing Fearless and Intrepid. We are beginning to become impatient. The Government are conducting the most wide-ranging review of defence capability since 1981. The House is entitled to a better answer than the one that the Minister gave. If he cannot give us an answer tonight, I hope that, perhaps immediately after the recess, when I imagine that we shall have the opportunity to debate the White Paper, he will be able to do so.
If craft are to be refurbished or replaced, the employment prospects of yards which may be fortunate enough to obtain the contracts could be transformed. If the studies are still going on, it might be time that some of us tabled questions about how much they have cost. The cost would probably go some way to paying for a minehunter, if not a frigate, given the amount of time and effort that have been put in to the studies.
In a defence review we might consider whether amphibiosity is still appropriate for Britain's Navy. Could it be taken on by other allies? If the review is dealing with burden sharing and a reallocation of roles in the alliance, perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that is one of the considerations behind the thinking.
We know that we are coming near the decision time for the EH101 order. It has been suggested that the matter will go to various committees in the near future. I hope that we shall have some information about that, again before the summer recess.
I understand that the contractual period for tendering expires in September. We must have an announcement from the Minister about the size and strategic significance of the order. I recognise that it is not within his capability at present to make such an announcement, but he owes the House the courtesy of making some announcement before the recess.
The Minister said that he hoped that the first of the new generation of strategic submarines nuclear would come into service at about the turn of the century. He spoke about establishing the early design stages. Perhaps he

1181
could clarify that. Last year it was announced that there would be a delay in replacing the SSN fleet. There have been press reports about the matter. For example, a recent one in The Daily Telegraph said that the Ministry had dropped its plans to build an entirely new class.
Will the Minister categorically say that that report of 25 June was wrong and that a new class of submarine will definitely be started? Can he be specific about when the starting time would have to be in order to have the boats in the water by the turn of the century? Whether a fourth boat is constructed by this Government or a future Labour one, as I understand the construction procedures followed by VSEL, there will be a sizeable gap in the order book of VSEL in the mid-1990s.
I notice that the hon. member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) is in his place and looking somewhat worried. We have had previous debates in the House on Ministry of Defence ordering procedures and their effect on the capability and the facility at Barrow.
Mr. Douglas: I wish to clarify one point. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue—we all make them—and I do not want to misquote the hon. Gentleman, who has been gracious in giving way, but I think that I heard him say, "If the fourth boat was constructed by this Government or a future Labour Government." Is it now Labour party policy that it would construct a fourth boat at Vickers?
Mr. O'Neill: Until an order is placed, no one can talk about construction. If an order were placed before a general election, an incoming Labour Government would have to examine the contract, the cancellation charges, and so on. The position on that is clear. It has been reported repeatedly that we have said that in the event of a general election being called after an order has been placed, a responsible Labour Government would examine the contract before cancelling.
With regard to the future of Barrow, will the Minister tell the House when he proposes to place the order for the fourth boat and what time scale he envisages for the design stage of a new class of SSN? The Labour party has always supported the construction of a new class of SSN. When does the Minister expect that orders could be placed, provided that the terms were right and given that VSEL is now probably the only submarine yard in the country capable of building nuclear-powered submarines?
Mr. Cecil Franks: The hon. Gentleman was right to say that I was looking worried. It was about the same point that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) made. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) say, "If a fourth submarine is ordered by either this Government or an incoming Labour Government." It is possible that that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant to say. I want to give him the opportunity to clarify the Labour party's policy on Trident.
It is rare for Labour Front Bench spokesmen to give way to me when I seek to clarify the points that they make in debates. In last year's debate, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his Front Bench colleagues spoke about Trident. It is incredible that with Trident the cornerstone of Britain's defence policy, a supposedly credible Labour Opposition can debate the Navy without mentioning the subject.
Mr. O'Neill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for correcting the shortcomings of last year. Given his grasp of the subject, he will accept that if I can be of assistance to him, enabling him to make a point so that I can give him information, that is for the benefit of the House. He asked if I could envisage a Labour Government ordering a fourth boat. He will find when he reads the Official Report tomorrow that I did not say what he said I said. I said that if a submarine had been ordered and was under construction by a Conservative or future Labour Government—
Mr. Franks: No, the hon. Gentleman did not say that.
Mr. O'Neill: We will check with the Official Report tomorrow. The point is clear and I shall repeat it once more and leave it there. If an order is placed by the Conservative Government before a general election occurs, a Labour Cabinet will reserve the right to look at the contract before cancellation—[interruption.] That is our position. We shall look at it because it would be irresponsible not to do so.
Mr. Franks: What would Labour Members do now if they were running things? That is a simple question which requires a simple answer.
Mr. O'Neill: We do not consider that there is a need for a fourth boat. We have never argued for one because a fourth boat is a luxury which the country does not need. It is a craft for which the targeting, deploying and crewing arrangements and maintenance are not needed.
I understand that the availability of the present Polaris fleet is such that a number of questions are raised by a report appearing in The Scotsman and The Guardian today, about which I telephoned the Minister's office in the hope that he would respond to those issues when he replies to this debate. Will he confirm those reports, to the effect that the Polaris fleet has experienced difficulties? Can he provide explanations for the problems that the submarines are facing? What steps are being taken to rectify those problems? What are the expenditure and personnel implications arising out of those problems? The report appearing today in those newspapers may or may not have substance. The House is entitled to a ministerial response on the subject.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will my hon. Friend add to that list of problems a difficulty that is of great concern to me and to the Labour party and which should concern the Government? As the Trident programme is on-going, is it not a disgrace that the Government should continue to allow a boat yard manufacturing timber craft to be located on loch Gare, next to the largest construction works, in terms of defence establishments, in the whole of Europe? In other words, a large concentration of our nuclear capability is located next to a small boat yard. The Minister should comment on what appears to be a grave threat to our nuclear capability and say whether it is intended to remove that facility from loch Gare.
Mr. O'Neill: I am sure that the Minister will have given much consideration to the point that my hon. Friend raises, and will give a full answer when he replies to the debate. My hon. Friends and I have always said that problems must exist over the location of nuclear submarines, from security and other points of view.
Sir Anthony Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman spell out Labour party policy on that issue? Would Labour maintain our independent nuclear deterrent? Labour policy should be clearly on the record, remembering that when Labour was last in office, it updated our nuclear deterrent by bringing in Chevaline, although the House was not told that that was being done.
Mr. O'Neill: We would deploy the Trident boats—[Interruption.]—the three of them that we would construct.
It is 18 months since we last debated the Navy and during that time a number of changes have occurred in the international situation, not least as a result of the Gulf war. We have supported the efforts of the fleet and recognised the tremendous courage and determination of the Royal Marines. We recognise also the back-up that was and is given not simply by the Fleet Auxiliary but by the men and women who work in the bases, the dockyards and shipyards and in subcontracting firms throughout the country. Operation Granby made clear the wide range of people who support the fleet and service personnel, the men and women who serve in the ships—
Mr. Peter Viggers rose—
Mr. O'Neill: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am about to conclude my remarks. He has had ample time in which to intervene. He did not attempt to do so earlier.
Mr. Viggers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give way because this is the first time that he has mentioned—
Mr. O'Neill: I am not giving way.
Mr. Viggers: —the people who serve in the armed forces.
Mr. O'Neill: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been here throughout the debate and heard the beginning of it. If so, he would have heard the Minister and me speaking of the way in which hon. Members in all parts of the House have great respect for the tremendous work that was done as part of Operation Granby and is now being done as part of Operation Haven. That work will continue to be done in a variety of forms, and as part of it there are many unsung roles.
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not regard my comments in that respect as a fulsome tribute to the Navy. Apart from those serving in the obvious areas—in the bases and elsewhere—all others take pride in the tremendous achievements of our Navy and the contribution that it makes to the security of the nation. While we may disagree across the Floor of the House on other matters, we agree totally about that.
I hope that in areas where the Minister has yet to be decisive, he will give the House, before the summer, the sort of assurances that are required by the people about whom we have been speaking who, in many instances, are many stages removed from service personnel but who feel that they are contributing to the national defence. Their jobs and personal security are on the line and they need reassuring.
This is the first time the Minister has participated in a Navy debate. There have been too many occasions in the past when there have been nods and winks about the possibility of orders. We have had indications to the effect
1184
that the process of decision-making might be beginning. Too many decisions have yet to be made and I get the impression that they will not be made this side of the next general election. Clearly, it will take a change of Government to arrive at the decisions that the Navy and the British people want to secure the future of these islands.
6.18 pm
Sir John Farr rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member would be more comfortable sea ted, that would be in order.
Sir John Farr: I am obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that consideration, but I shall remain standing.
I wish at the outset to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) on his concise and cogent speech, which was reassuring and comforting. He took the opportunity to pay tribute to the role of the Royal Navy in the recent Gulf conflict. Like the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), I am sure that we are all full of admiration for what the Royal Navy did, on a budget which many hon. Members consider was a shoestring. The sort of money that has been voted for the Royal Navy has not enabled it to perform a proper role in the Gulf or to be able to perform such a role if there were another Gulf conflict—please God there never will be—unless more finance is put into the service.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the decision to wind sown or sell off HMS Challenger to another power. It has been suggested that by losing Challenger we shall lose the capacity to rescue submariners should a submarine be lost on the sea bed. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, that was not Challenger's main purpose. I have visited Challenger, as has my hon. Friend, no doubt many times. Challenger's role was at the threshold of naval warfare of the future, tracking down acoustic mines and listening devises placed on the sea bed, perhaps by a Warsaw pact power that wanted to know the movements of allied shipping. It has a number of small one or two-man submarines and I was lucky enough to meet the crews of many of them when I went on that trip. It will be a tragedy if we have to lose out when we were in the forefront of such developments.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State paid tribute to the Navy's role in the Gulf. It is my view and that of people I know who are still connected with the service that it was little short of miraculous. My hon. Friend did not have time to mention some of the dirty work that the Navy carried out. Let us imagine groping for underwater mines in harbours along the coast of Kuwait in water that is almost 50 per cent. crude oil. The Navy did so without complaint. It was a filthy job and the Navy did it so effectively. No other nation would touch it.
What a brilliant role our minesweeping force played in the Gulf. I hoped that my hon. Friend would say a little more about that. I have always wanted to know whether minesweepers that do not create a shadow are effective. There was a fanfare when the minesweepers went to the Gulf and we were told that we had a fantastic force of ships that did not create a metal shadow to explode a mine. Minesweepers did very well and I hope that the Minister will say something about that capability. Are we unique in having that capability, as I thought, and have other nations adopted other methods of tracking down mines

1185
and dealing with them? The Americans seem to favour helicopter search and destruction and I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about that.
The performance of HMS Gloucester and her anti-aircraft crew dealing with incoming missiles was wonderful, as was the performance of all Her Majesty's helicopter pilots.
Our efforts in the Gulf were beyond comparison and I am lost in admiration for them. However, was it really impossible for us to deploy a tiny carrier task force? At the time there was a rumour that one of our carriers was to be deployed, but it never went to the Gulf and we had to rely mainly on the Americans to secure air supremacy.
Let us hope that there is not another Gulf conflict, but if some other international situation arises will we not need our own air superiority? If some form of aircraft carrier force is not available it will be impossible to deal with such threats.
My hon. Friend the Minister will agree that a delicate balance has to be maintained. One could ask whether we need a nuclear deterrent—that decision must be taken on high. I think that we do and I am confident that the Government's decision to go for a four Trident nuclear fleet is correct. Are we right to choose to retain the nuclear deterrent and to have four Tridents? In a short time, if the eastern bloc withdraws from international affairs, it will make it transparently obvious that one ballistic missile submarine makes nonsense. One must consider the necessity of having any ballistic submarine fleet, as it is a weapon which one could never contemplate using. However, there are pros and cons which are not to be aired in a Royal Navy debate.
There is a delicate balance in deciding whether to go for a four-Trident force or to abandon it and advance on another front, by developing the SSN-20 submarine, where we are in the forefront internationally. Such submarines are totally silent and a new generation is due to come into service next year. However, reports in the papers suggest that it is due to be scrapped. Obviously one cannot have everything, but the SSN-20 is in a new field in which our research and technology is very advanced.
If my hon. Friend does not reply to my remarks I shall know that nothing is on. There is the question of securing the sale of a nuclear submarine. We nearly made a deal with the Canadians, and if we were able to interest Canada or any other nation in a joint development programme it might be easier to cope with the financing of the development of SSN-20s and such technical advances.
I was disappointed at the extent to which we had to rely on foreign merchant ships to provide the impedimenta of war for our troops in the Gulf. The Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force all did a first-class job in the Gulf, but it seems a pity that more than three quarters of their supplies went by sea in merchant vessels flying another flag. Has the red duster collapsed completely? Do we no longer have a British merchant fleet? If we have, why was some effort not made—even if it had meant a little extra cost, and possibly even for security reasons—to use the red ensign for supplying Royal Navy ships and all the British forces in the Gulf that did such a splendid job?
While ending on that slightly disappointed note, I want again to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, and to say how proud we all are in the House at the way in which the Royal Navy performed in the Gulf a few months ago.
6.30 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), whose expert views on the Royal Navy are widely respected in the House. I particularly agree with his two early points about HMS Challenger and about the importance of mine counter-measure vessels in the Gulf war. There is an unsubstantiated story—though perhaps it is not untrue—that on one occasion, an American minehunter in the Persian gulf discovered one morning that it was surrounded by mines and had to call on the assistance of a British minesweeper to find its way out. That is testimony to the Royal Navy's supremacy in minehunting and mine clearing to which the hon. Member for Harborough referred.
I regret that I shall have to leave the House shortly after I finish speaking. I have already apologised to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for the unintended and unavoidable discourtesy of not being present for the rest of the debate.
I associate myself and my party with the comments of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Clackmannan on the role played by the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines in Operation Granby and Operation Haven. They performed, as they always do, in the highest traditions of the service, and the House and the nation are much indebted to them.
I found myself much in agreement with the hon. Member for Clackmannan—which is not always the case in respect of defence matters—when he said that the Government's approach to reconstructing and reshaping our forces in the face of the new threats that so self-evidently compose themselves against us is all wrong. That task should be approached on no other basis but that of a proper defence review. We know that the threat to this nation has changed. In the light of the collapse of the Soviet empire—albeit the Soviet Union is still producing submarines at a faster rate than ever before—the threat to our nation has manifestly and self-evidently changed.
We know also, in the light of the Gulf war, that our ability to conduct out-of-area operations in co-operation with other nations may be absolutely vital in ensuring future world peace. To allow decisions to be taken without a proper defence review, and only according to the requirements of the Treasury—rather than make a rational response to the threats that now confront us—is folly of the highest order.
We are seeing a defence review of death by a thousand cuts. It will result in defence forces that are not property balanced, and a climate in which providers of defence equipment will be unable to make the right decisions for their own industry or properly to serve our armed forces. It will result in a series of spatchcocked decisions, which will not add up to a proper, balanced structure for our armed forces.
Rosyth naval dockyard was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clackmannan, and its future has been raised before by members of my party and by other right hon. and hon. Members. Rosyth is a classic example of a profoundly crucial naval facility of strategic importance, yet hundreds of thousands of jobs associated with it are at risk. To allow that dockyard to be cut as an item on its own, without framing it in the context of a proper defence review, is folly.

1187
If the Government take rational decisions about reducing or changing the shape of our armed services—and decisions must be made—after a full defence review, the Minister will not find them opposed by Members on these Benches on the basis only of constituency arguments or special pleading. However, such decisions must carry the support of the House.
The subject of the EH101 helicopter was touched on by the Minister, but somewhat disappointingly. I hope that he will be able to say more when he winds up.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Wil the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
Mr. Ashdown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. As other right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute, I do not want to speak at length, so this will probably be the only intervention that I will allow.
Mr. Bruce: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman wants to move on to give his views about helicopters, on which I am sure that I shall support him, even though it may seem that we both have a constituency interest in the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that defence decisions should not be Treasury-led. I understand that the Labour party suggests cutting back defence expenditure by one third, and that the Liberal Democrats have mentioned a cut of about one half. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm his party's policy—or would it accept whatever figure the Government produce after their review?
Mr. Ashdown: Obviously such matters have to turn on Treasury considerations as well. The nation must know how much its defence is to cost, and decide whether it can afford to meet that cost. However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his remarks about my party's policy. We have said that it seems to us that a 50 per cent. cut in the defence budget by the end of the century is a reasonable aspiration—but that is an aspiration, not a policy. It is an aim that we may be able to achieve, consistent with proper defence.
No Government, and certainly no responsible party, would put that aspiration before the security of the nation. However, the way matters are developing, it is reasonable to aspire to a cut of that size—but not at the expense of the nation's defence. We expect that our armed forces in the future will be much more mobile and flexible than currently, and probably smaller. There is no doubting that. The measure of that can only come after proper assessment of the threat and proper judgment of the forces required to meet it.
Of course I have a constituency interest at heart in respect of the EH101. Perhaps I should declare that I have more than a constituency interest, because I have the fantastic number of 25 shares in Westland which, when I purchased them more than 20 years ago, was the minimum required to allow me to attend the company's annual general meetings. Last year, those shares returned me the princely dividend of 30p. Right hon. and hon. Members will therefore appreciate that my constituency interest in Westland somewhat outweighs my financial interest in the company.
The Minister will appreciate anyway that the matter goes beyond Westland or Yeovil, because only about one third of a modern helicopter is manufactured by the company whose name it bears and about two thirds of it
1188
is bought in. I suspect that upwards of 100 right hon. and hon. Members have a direct interest in the future of the EH101, so I speak for a greater number of constituents than the 5,000 or 6,000 who work for Westland in Yeovil.
The EH101 is a world-beating helicopter in all senses. It incorporates many technical advances—vibration suppression probably being the most recent of them—representing the front edge of world aerospace technology. The EH101 is the only helicopter in the world in its class of 28,000 lb to 30,000 lb all-up weight. I believe that the Russians are attempting to produce an "EH101ski" but, as usual, that two-engined aircraft will not meet the requirements. The EH101 has an unrivalled dominance in both the civil and the military market place.
I remind the Minister that it is four years since the then Secretary of State for Defence promised the House, in 1987, an order of 25 utility EH101s and reconfirmed that promise in Yeovil. That promise has yet to be delivered. At the same time, he made a commitment to the Merlin.
The EH101 is more than just a powerful helicopter with substantial defence sales overseas—Canada is particularly interested but such sales required a commitment from our Government—it is the centrepiece of the Government's strategy for the Navy in its anti-submarine protection role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the North sea and the north Atlantic. The type 23 frigate, which is designed around the EH101 helicopter, has only about 50 per cent. of its operational capacity without it. But the first type 23 frigate, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Ashdown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The first type 23 frigate was launched in 1987—a full four years ago. If the Government take a decision on the EH101 this year, the first one will not come off the production line until 1995. That means that the first type 23 frigate, costing £243 million will have spent a minimum of eight or nine years—
Mr. Douglas: It is not as dear as that.
Mr. Ashdown: I am told that it is. I stand to be corrected, but I obtained that figure from the Library this morning.
The first type 23 frigate, costing a substantial amount of money—£243 million was the figure that I was given, but if I am wrong I concede the point to the hon. Gentleman—will have been in service for nine years, on about one third of its keel life expectancy of 25 years, without the weapon system around which it was designed. There are now three type 23 frigates afloat, worth three quarters of a billion pounds, but without the weapon system around which they were designed. By the time the aircraft comes into production and is in service with the Royal Navy in 1995, there will be seven new frigates plus the three already floating—a total of 10—which means that £2·5 billion-worth of Government defence material will be floating without the weapon system around which and for which it was designed.
The aircraft also has substantial civil potential. Many believe that the standards of comfort of the EH101 match turbo prop levels. We believe that, in Japan and elsewhere, there is a considerable sales potential for the aircraft.
The EH101 is the centrepiece of probably one of the most successful existing European collaborations—the

1189
Anglo-Italian one. The Italians have made their commitment to it clear, but we have not yet heard from the British Government in unequivocal terms.
We have an enormous commitment in Westland. I choose my words carefully, not without consultation, and I believe that it is no exaggeration to say that, if the order does not go through, or if it is delayed, we put at risk Britain's capacity to have a stand-alone helicopter manufacturer. That risk is posed not merely if the Government make the wrong decision—I hope they will not, and the Minister's commitment seems to show that they will take the right decision—but if they take no decision. If there is a delay we face that risk.
We are talking about a piece of equipment that our services desperately need. A senior Royal Navy officer told me the other day that he believed that without the EH101 the Royal Navy could not carry out its anti-submarine duties in NATO on the present force levels of which the Government speak. That fundamental duty depends on the EH101. At risk are overseas military orders, civil market potential, European collaboration and the integrity of the design teams which are at the heart of Westland's capacity to produce this remarkable aircraft.
Again, I choose my words carefully—if the Government delay until after July some of the crucial decisions necessary for that project to go ahead, Westland will not be able to put off for long the dismantling of the design teams at the heart of the aircraft. If they go, there is no doubt that we shall never get them back, and Britain will have lost a substantial aerospace asset. I do not use those words lightly—I have thought about them carefully and consulted widely, and I hope that the Minister will listen to them.
The Government can delay making the decision no longer than the end of July. I hope that today we shall hear a clear, confirmed United Kingdom policy commitment to the EH101. I hope that the Minister in his wind-up speech will say that we are to have an announcement on the mission prime contractor before the House rises at the end of July, as we were promised. I very much hope that the Minister will make a commitment to the Westland IBM part of that programme. I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is speaking to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I remind him of the promise that the announcement would be made this summer. It is not good enough for the announcement to be made in the late summer. In all honesty and fairness to Westland, it ought to be made before the House rises at the end of July.
Memorandum of understanding No. 4, initiating investment preparations for production between the United Kingdom and Italian Governments, which should have been made by January 1991, must be made this summer—preferably before the end of July—and intergovernmental memorandum of understanding No. 5, which commits to production, must be made by the end of 1991.
The Minister cannot delay a decision on that any longer. If he fails to decide and to announce that decision, he will weaken our forces, especially the Royal Navy, by denying them the equipment needed to do their job. He will prevent the Royal Navy from carrying out its functions in NATO in the north Atlantic and deal a deadly blow to European collaboration, just when we should be building on it. He will place at risk the technological lead
1190
that Westland has accumulated. He will sacrifice overseas orders and severely, potentially fatally, damage the United Kingdom's only stand-alone helicopter manufacturer.
I have one message for the Minister—that further delay would be folly. The Minister must decide, and he must do so as soon as possible.
6.47 pm
Mr. Churchill: I think that many hon. Members would agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) when he expressed concern at the importance of the maintenance of our defence industrial base. If one allows the levels to fall below certain points in some sectors, one loses an entire capability for ever. The right hon. Gentleman was right: when the Tripoli was struck by a mine in the Gulf, a United States minesweeper came to a dead halt in the water and had to wait until it was led to safety by a British Hunt class minehunter.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his opening speech and on drawing attention to the Labour party's achilles heel in defence matters—the deterrent. The Labour party's ambivalence on the future of Britain's deterrent will undoubtedly play a central part in the forthcoming general election campaign. In the face of the threat of nuclear proliferation, Britain's deterrent becomes even more vital than it has been in the past with a multiplicity of decision-making centres and individuals involved in them who appear to be increasingly reckless and irresponsible in their use of political and military power.
This afternoon the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that a Labour Government would deploy Trident. That is a welcome opinion, but it is valueless against the assertion by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the Leader of the Opposition that Trident would be deployed only in order to negotiate it away. What is the value of negotiating it away if that leaves us at the mercy of military dictators such as a future Saddam Hussein who manages to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, thereby placing the British people at risk of an attack?
I pay tribute to the calibre and record of our forces in the Gulf which I had the privilege to visit twice with my colleagues on the Select Committee on Defence. The Royal Navy's part in that campaign was remarkable, and there are still Royal Navy vessels in the Gulf continuing the blockade of Iraq. We must not underestimate the Royal Navy's contribution in the allied context. The United States battleships Wisconsin and Missouri, with their magnificent 16 in guns, which we all saw on television would never have been able to get close enough to the Kuwaiti coastline to bombard the Iraqi defensive positions but for the five Hunt class minehunters deployed by the Royal Navy. One cannot speak too highly of what they achieved.
The alertness of a 17-year-old seaman aboard HMS Gloucester at 5 o'clock in the morning when a Silkworm missile was launched towards the USS Missouri probably saved that vessel or one of those in her immediate company from massive damage caused by the Silkworm's three-quarter tonne warhead. The total flight time of that missile was no more than 50 seconds, and the speed in tracking, identifying and engaging it with two Royal Navy Sea Darts was of the highest order of seamanship and modern technology.

1191
Many lessons will be drawn from the Gulf conflict, but two stand out. The first is the need always to be prepared for the unexpected, and the second is to learn once again that our military disposition must be based on an asssessment of a potential enemy's capability and not his intentions. Intentions are difficult to assess at the best of times, and they can change overnight. That truth is underlined by the fact that, as far as I am aware, no one claims to have foreseen the invasion of the Falklands by Argentina or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
That brings me to "Options for Change". That is a sad misnomer, because the options were foreclosed 12 months ago when the Government selected the minimum option on offer, since when their policies have largely been set in concrete. Even the convulsion of the Gulf war has changed nothing, except that we have seen the emergence of a rapid deployment force in Europe under British command. I welcome that as a tribute to the professionalism and expertise of Britain's armed forces.
These non-options with which Parliament has been presented are already being implemented. I regret to say that the cuts go too far and are too deep. It is painfully slow and difficult to build up a capability, but it can be cut at the stroke of a pen. I urge the Government to reconsider the cuts before irreparable damage is caused to a defence capability that has been built up over decades.
I appreciate that there has been a significant evolution in the nature and immediacy of the Soviet threat following the removal of Soviet forces from eastern Europe and the signing of the CFE agreement. It is right that such changes should be reflected in the dispositions of our armed forces and, in particular, in the major cuts on the central front. It is one thing for the United States, with its vast military resources containing much waste and fat, to make a cut of 25 per cent. It is quite another for us to impose a similar level of cuts upon our already small and overstretched armed forces. Our armed forces are lean and highly efficient and have nothing but muscle and bone to cut.
In many cases, the implemented cuts go far beyond 25 per cent. The strength of the Royal Navy's submarines is being cut by no less than 40 per cent., from 27 to a mere 16, even though the Soviets have maintained a production rate of one submarine every six weeks. Paragraph 5 of the sixth report of the Select Committee on Defence, which was published only today, states:
"We concluded that by the year 2000 there would be a Northern Fleet"—
that is a Soviet fleet—
"submarine force of between 30 and 50 Akula class SSNs, a dozen or more Oscar class SSGNs and around 20 Delta IV or Typhoon SSBNs."
We must not forget that, in world war two, just 57 U-boats sank 18 million tonnes of allied shipping, and that today's Soviet submarines are infinitely more capable than the U-boats. That is why I view with dismay the scale of the intended cut in our submarine forces. It is impossible to cut so deeply our naval, army or air force capability without eliminating roles and capabilities. Thus far, Ministers have not faced that or, if they have, they have not owned up to it to the House. It is time for them to be frank with the House in spelling out the clear consequences of current cuts.
When the cuts have been implemented, will Britain, if it is ever required to do so, be able to implement a
1192
naval-based operation on the scale of the Falklands conflict? Many doubts have been raised about that, not least because of the fact that sea-lift is no longer available. In the last decade, the British-registered merchant fleet has fallen to one tenth of what it was and the Government must urgently find a way of reversing that decline. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will address that matter next week.
It is not just the Falklands conflict that we would find difficult to repeat. In five years, will we be in a position to make a comparable contribution in an allied context to the sort of operation in which we have just participated with such distinction in the Gulf? Is the abandonment of those capabilities a conscious decision of Government?
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): We are not doing that.
Mr. Churchill: I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say that these capabilities are not being abandoned. I hope that he will give us clear assurances that, if necessary, we shall be able to repeat our contribution and participation in the Gulf.
The cuts are not being based on a thorough-going defence review, a reappraisal of Britain's foreign policy interests and role in the world or on any intellectual consideration of the threat and interests involved; they are essentially Treasury driven. It is significant that, when the Secretary of State announced "Options for Change" to the House on 25 July 1990, it was expected that the Soviet Union would destroy no fewer than 100,000 major items of conventional military equipment. That has not happened. Although the Soviets signed the agreement, they have managed to evade its provisions by withdrawing no fewer than 49,000 items of treaty-limited equipment to behind the Urals. The fact that the Soviet military has been able to take the west by surprise, and its motives for so doing, should have set alarm bells ringing and, even now, should cause a rethink of the scale of the cuts under "Options for Change".
The Gulf war showed the capability of smart weapons and made one wonder whether we can afford weapons that fail to hit their targets. Tomahawk proved a spectacular success, with 98 per cent. hitting their targets. If the Royal Navy is to stay in the forefront of naval technology, it must acquire a cruise missile capability not only for surface ships but for a new generation of submarines.
The Defence Select Committee has expressed its concern about the impact of Government policies on the defence industrial base, with particular reference to submarines. Submarines have been built at Barrow for 85 years. For the past 20 years, Vickers, which is now VSEL, has maintained a work force of more than 12,500, which increased to 15,500 for Trident. It will be slashed by more than half unless orders are soon placed for a new generation of nuclear attack submarines. If they are not forthcoming, that central core of skill and industrial expertise will be lost for ever.
VSEL and the Ministry of Defence went to great lengths to develop the Upholder class of diesel electric submarine. It was intended that 12 should be built, but the Government now say that only four will be built. The Defence Select Committee says in its report that at least six should be built. I hope that the Government will reconsider that.

1193
It has been suggested in the press—I am sure maliciously and without foundation—that the Ministry of Defence is waiting until the last days before the recess to announce the cancellation of SSN-20, a new generation of faster, quieter submarine that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) referred to in his distinguished speech. I am glad that he was able to be here to make his speech. That submarine was intended to replace the Swiftshore class, which came into service in 1973. It would be profoundly regrettable if my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement were unable to prove the Cassandras wrong by giving VSEL the go-ahead for SSN20 in the forthcoming weeks.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues were admirably robust in standing up to Saddam Hussein, who posed only a limited threat to Britain's armed forces. Let them now show the same determination and tenacity in standing up to the Treasury, which poses an unmistakably mortal threat to our armed forces. The armed forces of the Crown can look to no one else but the House and Defence Ministers to do so.
It is time that battle was joined. Britain is justly proud of its armed forces, which are unquestionably the finest in the world. The Government should beware of drastically cutting them.
7.5 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), but I perceive, as he does, that the problem with the Government's defence review is that it has not carefully analysed our needs for the next few years and cut the cloth to meet them. For that reason, "Options for Change" is unsatisfactory. Unlike the hon. Member for Davyhulme, I believe that, if we analyse our needs carefully, we might be able to make further cuts rather than continue with the predicted expenditure.
The Minister had the effrontery to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for what he perceived as doubt about the Labour party's policy on the nuclear deterrent. I regret that policy, but I see no doubt about it. The Minister has obviously been brought up in the football school of "get your retaliation in first". Instead of answering crucial questions on the state of Britain's nuclear deterrent, he wanted to refer to what would happen under a Labour Government. Any Minister who had seen the substantial article in The Guardian this morning and a similar article in The Scotsman, the document that has been circulated by Greenpeace in the past six weeks, and the report of the Defence Select Committee, would have realised that there is a serious charge for the Government to answer—that Britain has no seaborne nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Franks: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that he regrets the Labour party's policy. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about the Labour party cancelling a fourth Trident boat, or would he prefer the whole lot to be cancelled?
Mr. Bennett: I have made my position clear—I should like the whole lot to be cancelled. The money would be far better spent on meeting other defence roles. I do not apologise for saying that. I have always favoured getting rid of our nuclear deterrent because I do not believe that
1194
it would work. I am not prepared to change my mind. For a long time, I was in the minority in the Labour party. For a period, I was able to persuade my colleagues that I was right, but now they have changed their minds again. That is up to them, but I am firmly against the use of nuclear weapons and I do not think that we need them.
The problem facing the Government has resulted not from a change in policy but from their incompetence in appearing to be abandoning the nuclear deterrent. It is odd that, despite all the points that have been put to them in the past few months, they have not been able to answer the central question of whether they are confident that they can keep a Polaris submarine operational at sea until the Trident programme takes effect. They are extremely lucky that, for most people, the Russian threat has disappeared and they are therefore not being scrutinised as closely as they might be.
Over the past six months, it has become obvious that the refit programme of some of the Polaris submarines has fallen so far behind because of technical problems—for example, cracks have been exposed—that it is not possible to keep a Polaris submarine operational all the time now. Over the next three or so years, it will certainly not be possible to keep one operational. The Government should come clean and admit that and develop their policy on the basis of that gap.
I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and his Front-Bench colleagues did not criticise the Government more and ask more questions about what was happening to Polaris. I understand their difficulties, but I warn them that, if they suddenly find themselves Ministers, the kindness that they have shown the Government will not be shown to them. Conservative Members will blame the incoming Labour Government for the demise of Polaris.
I have a criticism to make of the newspapers, particularly of defence correspondents, many of whom have a close, friendly relationship with the Ministry of Defence and are not prepared to put searching questions to it. It is interesting that none of the criticisms of Polaris in recent months in the press has come from defence correspondents. Those criticisms have come from correspondents in The Observer, The Guardian and The Scotsman who specialise in other matters but have turned their attention to what is happening with Polaris.
I also criticise the procedures of the House. It is extremely difficult to get answers from Ministers about the problems of the Polaris fleet. It is argued that that is a matter of national security, but the idea of having a deterrent is to convince other people that one has a credible system. By ducking behind secrecy, the Government suggest that there is no longer a credible Polaris system. If there were such a system, they would be only too pleased to answer questions and to make it clear that one existed.
If one gets questions past the Table Office—I make no criticism of the Table Office—Ministers duck them on the basis that it costs too much to provide the answers or they refer to commercial confidentiality. They offer to write rather than have the answer appear in Hansard. Sometimes they are good at producing ambiguous answers which can be read in several ways.
To give a typical example of the problems, I have tried to find out the costs of decommissioning our nuclear-powered submarines so that we know whether the Trident programme is good value for money. Apparently, the

1195
Government do not have a clue about the costs. I asked about the cost of making Dreadnought safe, but the Government said that it would cost too much to find the answer. I asked the Government about the cost of decommissioning Conqueror and Warspite, but the Government said that it involved commercial confidentiality. That is rubbish. I suspect that the Government do not have a clue how to make the nuclear reactors in the submarines safe. It is therefore not a matter of commercial confidentiality.
The Government want to hide the costs from the House. They are keen to criticise the Labour party and say that it wants to borrow to produce investment in the health service, industry, and so on. In a sense, the Government are committing themselves to substantial borrowing by going ahead with nuclear-powered submarines when they do not have a clue how to make the weapons safe.
Because of the problems with Polaris submarines, it looks as though the lives of Navy personnel and perhaps those of future generations will be put at risk. Last week, I managed to get from the Government an answer about radiation dosages. Again, it was an interesting struggle, showing how Ministers tried to avoid providing information by writing to me rather than putting the answer in Hansard. Figures suggest that radiation levels at Faslane are high compared with levels at other nuclear facilities. The Government must explain why there are such high dosages. Refit work is not going on—it should be routine work. There appear to be major problems in getting the boats back to sea.
At bases where workers are in a trade union, people have managed to negotiate conditions whereby the dosage ceilings are lower, but at bases where workers operate under military discipline they are not in a position to resist what happens. The Government's answer referred to some worryingly high dosages. Perhaps the Minister can tell me that the problems at Faslane have been overcome and that the next dosages registered will show a marked reduction. I should be extremely worried if one of my relatives worked there. The more we know about dosages, the more the families of those who work there should be worried. I hope that the Minister will answer some of those questions.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he is confident that Polaris can be kept going until Trident comes into service. If it will not, should not the Government re-examine the deterrent? Do we need it? If we do, do we need it in exactly the same form as was proposed when Russia was perceived to be the only enemy and our system could deliver weapons over a long distance? If circumstances are as the hon. Member for Davyhulme suggested and we need to consider deterring different people, we may need a different system. Those questions should be raised in a proper review of defence expenditure.
I shall listen to the Minister carefully. I hope that he can start to answer the questions that were posed in the document prepared by Greenpeace, in the articles in The Guardian and The Scotsman today, and in the Defence Select Committee's report, which I suspect will soon form part of a major review by that Committee.
7.17 pm
Mr. Cecil Franks: For the past 12 months, following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on "Options for Change", there has been great uncertainty about Royal Navy procurement policy. The statement this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State went a long way towards removing much of the uncertainty, and I compliment him on the decisions that he announced.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider several matters. The first is the contract for the fourth Trident boat SSBN8. When will the invitation to tender be made? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that VSEL, to which the invitation will be made, has made it clear, and has asked me to make it equally clear, that it will submit its tender within three months of the invitation? When the Ministry has received the tender, how long will it take for it to conclude its negotiations and to award the contract?
I need not remind my right hon. Friend the Minister nor the House of the vital employment considerations that turn on the early granting of the contract for the fourth Trident boat.
As the livelihoods of thousands of my constituents depend on Royal Navy procurement and on the Trident programme, it may be worth considering the Labour party's policies, because Labour Front-Bench spokesmen studiously avoid the subject of Trident if they can. I remind the House that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), and his deputy spokesman when winding up, spoke for one and a half hours in our previous debate on the Royal Navy without once mentioning the Trident programme.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) who, for different reasons, questioned the Labour party's policy on Trident. I assure him that he was only seconds ahead of me. I was surprised, but pleased, that, for the first time in many debates on the Royal Navy, one of the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesmen was prepared to give way to me and allow me to question him.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman noted the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), whom we are all pleased to see in his seat, who also questioned the need for a nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Franks: It is perfectly fair and proper to question; it is the decision that is reached which counts. There were questions and debates in the Conservative party years ago; decisions were made, and they are now being implemented.
It might be worth while reminding the Labour party, and especially those on its Front Bench, that in the 1983 general election I and other Conservative candidates were opposed by Labour candidates who were campaigning furiously and vociferously to cancel the Trident programme. In 1987, exactly the same happened, and now the hon. Members for Clackmannan, for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) are beginning to twist, turn and weave while trying to wriggle out of the decision made by the Labour party conference which binds the Labour party to its manifesto.
I remind those three hon. Members that they were the very people who, in the 1987 and 1983 general elections, sought to make thousands of my constituents redundant

1197
overnight. In the Chamber, they claim that their hearts bleed about unemployment, but they certainly did not give a damn about the unemployment that their policies would have caused in Barrow and Furness.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Government gave the monopoly in submarine building to his constituents and, with the creation of that monopoly, put thousands of my constituents out of work. The hon. Gentleman's memory is a little short about that squalid incident.
Mr. Franks: It is not that my memory is short, but that the hon. Gentleman's facts are incorrect. When the British shipbuilding industry was nationalised in 1976 and British Shipbuilders was created, the decision was taken by the nationalised industry, under a Labour Government, to concentrate the building of nuclear submarines in the shipyards of Barrow. That decision was taken, for better or for worse, by the Labour Government in 1976.
Dr. Godman: I referred to the submarine building monopoly. The diesel-electric submarines were built at Scots in Greenock. The monopoly given to Vickers extends to nuclear and conventionally powered submarines.
Mr. Franks: If the hon. Gentleman checks the facts, he will find that the long lead orders for the Trafalgar class submarine, which is nuclear-powered, were given under the Labour Administration of 1974–79. I suggest that, if he wants to quarrel, he should do so with his colleagues rather than with me. I and my constituents are quite content that we have the monopoly, and we have used it for the benefit of the Royal Navy and have given good value.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Surely it would have been better for Barrow and for the hon. Gentleman's constituents if they had not concentrated on building submarines, but had also built surface ships. There would not then have been the prediction of an unemployment rate of 25 per cent. in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Franks: I remind the hon. Gentleman that VSEL was part of the nationalised British Shipbuilders until 1986. It has a full order book and could not cope physically with building other vessels when four Trident submarines were to be built side by side in the huge ship hall.
The hon. Members for Houghton and Washington, for Clackmannan and for Rhondda are otherwise known as the three brass monkeys Cut, Chop and Cancel. That would be the reality of their proposals if they had the honesty to spell them out. For once, there has been a clear, unequivocal statement that the Labour party would cancel the fourth Trident submarine if it could. The comments have been well noted not just in the House, but by the constituents of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), in Cumbria and in Barrow and Furness.
I represent a constituency in which, three or four months ago, VSEL announced that there would be up to 5,000 job losses. I found it rather dramatic when, two weeks ago, the Government announced a support initiative for that constituency and for the town, but the hon. Member for Carlisle, a fellow Cumbrian, was mealy-mouthed. It is equally worrying that the Labour spokesman can sit here grinning at the prospect of major
1198
unemployment in my constituency and that he and his colleagues have been unable to come up with a credible way to provide work and jobs for those who live in my constituency.
Mr. Martlew rose—
Mr. Franks: No. I shall not give way.
Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me so he should give way to me.
Mr. Franks: I have given way three or four times. I take it as a compliment that what I am saying is at last provoking the Opposition to say something.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Franks: No.
The authentic voice of the Labour party was that of he hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Although I disagree with what he said, he at least had the honesty to speak his mind. His is not only the true voice, but the majority voice, within the Labour party. The Labour Benches are littered with members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The former chairman of CND sits on the Front Bench, and I am sure that there are others. Prospective Labour party candidates—including the one for Barrow and Furness—all have good, long and sound CND credentials.
It might be interesting to mention the way in which the Labour party in Barrow has dealt with Trident and with the prospect of the fourth submarine. Just a few years ago, in 1986, the Labour party in Barrow, influenced by contacts in Manchester and Liverpool, and following the trend of the time, declared Barrow, of all places, a nuclear-free zone. I must qualify that, because the Labour party actually declared Barrow a "nuclear weapons-free zone". That was the way in which Labour managed to wriggle out of the fact that 100 yards from the town hall where the councillors sat, the nuclear reactors on the submarines went critical. To be fair to Barrow Labour party, it was not exactly a nuclear-free zone, just a nuclear weapons-free zone.
I want to deal next with the announcement about the follow-on to Trafalgar. What the Minister said is good news for Barrow and for the company, but will he clarify two or three points? He talked about a batch of new Trafalgar class submarines. Will he clarify how many that is? Will he also clarify when it is expected that construction will start? Will he bear it in mind that at least two years' design work is necessary before construction can start? Will he bear it in mind that it is, therefore, essential that a decision is taken on which option is requested and that the decision is taken in 1992? The placing of the main design work contract must be carried out next year.
For the continuity of the skills available, we cannot afford to have a lag between the completion of the Trident programme and the construction of the new Trafalgar boats. As other speakers have said, it is essential, if we are to maintain our submarine building capability, that we maintain the key and essential skills. There must be continuity.
I say to the Minister, not in anger but to make a point, that it will be no good for him or his successor to pick up the telephone in 1994 or 1995 and to say, "Hello, Mr. Barrow. This is the Minister. We would like you to build

1199
a submarine." There will be no point in that if the skills to build that submarine are being used for other initiatives or have dispersed to other areas.
Many initiatives are going on in my constituency. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the statement made on 13 June by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about support for Cumbria—principally for the constituency of Barrow and Furness. That statement was very much welcomed locally and in the county beyond. The Ministry of Defence also has a responsibility to play a part in the initiative. If there is to be a peace dividend—and few, if any, will deny that with the collapse of the Warsaw pact and with the changing international scene there has to be a defence dividend of some size—part of it must find its way back to constituencies such as mine, which in the past have been so heavily reliant on the defence industry.
Barrow is one of the three major manufacturing and industrial bases in the north-west. There is Manchester, there is Liverpool—diminishing through its own fault—and then there is Barrow, which has the largest heavy engineering complex in western Europe. If the Royal Navy is to be serviced, we cannot afford and we cannot allow that heavy engineering complex to move away from its traditional role of building ships for the Royal Navy.
Barrow was described by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in his statement on Cumbrian support as being unique in its combination of geographical isolation and heavy dependence on a single employer. Barrow and its community have served the Royal Navy well for over 100 years. We build some of the finest submarines in the world and we have built some of the finest surface vessels for the Royal Navy. Provided that my right hon. Friend makes the right decisions over the next 12 months, when he or his successor comes to make the telephone call to place the order for new submarines, the reply will be, "Yes, Minister."
7.34 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: I do not intend to follow the general line of the remarks of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), to whose speech I listened with great interest. I will not necessarily come to the conclusion that he came to on the defence industrial base. However, he may take it that I am not just expressing sympathy to him and to his constituents about the possibilities of job decline in an area whose specific reasons for being in existence is to serve the needs of the Navy. I too represent a constituency in which the labour force is high in relation to naval needs.
I welcome to the debate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. I understand that he has been serving other purposes in the House earlier today. Although I may have had personal disagreements with members of the Committee on certain aspects, I never disparage the Committee's work or the quality of its report. I will refer to some of its reports, including one that has been published today.
It is significant that, in debates on defence strategy, we have heard a great deal about changes on land and in the air as a consequence of the demise of the Warsaw pact, but we have not heard much about the future of naval power,
1200
although the Minister and some other hon. Members have tried to correct that. I absolve the Select Committee on Defence from part of that stricture because it addressed the issue in its third report. It commented in paragraph 4:
"The demise of the Warsaw Pact is unlikely to have a significant impact on Soviet naval strength".
In the subsequent paragraph, the Select Committee gave detailed estimates of Soviet naval strength. All the comments suggest that, although the Soviet fleet may be smaller, it would be "qualitatively more capable", and that it
"must remain the principal yardstick against which the Royal Navy's capabilities are judged."
If we take that comment as the first item on the hymn sheet, and if the argument is true, why are we engaged in cutting our naval forces? Why are we going through discussions with the Soviet Union to give it aid? it may not be used directly for defence purposes, but surely, if one aids an economy of such magnitude and complexity, that aid will be used indirectly for military purposes.
I have not been privy to the briefings obtained by the Select Committee, but I doubt the thrust of the argument about the capability of the Soviet fleet in terms of offensive capacity. I doubt whether it presents a major threat in current circumstances. If it does present the threat suggested, the Government will find it hard to justify the cuts that they have made and will make in naval capacity.
May I comment on one aspect of the report of the Select Committee of February 1991—the decommissioning of HMS Challenger and of the three nuclear submarines?
In my view, the whole Challenger episode is nothing short of a disgrace. We have heard many plaudits in connection with the Navy's capability, and I agree with them, but what happened in this instance deserves greater public examination. I would immediately suggest that the shipyard that built the vessel, Scott Lithgow on the lower Clyde, bears no responsibility, and that the fault in relation to the design and operational requirement lies entirely with the Ministry of Defence.
In an answer to me, printed at col. 13 of Hansard of 18 December, the Ministry of Defence told me that the total cost of the vessel, including docking periods, at 1990–91 prices, was £240 million. Perhaps we shall get a straight answer from the Minister tonight. How much does the Ministry expect to get back for that expenditure? And what offers, if any, have been made for the vessel? That vessel was called into being by, and specifically designed for, the Ministry of Defence. It is now lying waiting on a bidder. We are talking about £240 million down the drain at a time when our universities and other institutions are being screwed, to put it mildly, to come to grips with deficits of £5 million or £10 million.
On the decommissioning of nuclear powered submarines, I do not have time to go into all the points elaborated on by the Select Committee but, representing Rosyth, I am mindful of the fact that we have Dreadnought laid up there. What is to happen to Conqueror, Churchill and Warspite? What is the Navy's policy on decommissioning? What does it intend to do with the other boats that will be decommissioned in the coming years—the other SSNs and the Polaris fleet?
I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee will pay particular attention to my remarks about Polaris—and I follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who referred to the whole question of the viability of the Polaris fleet. I take the view—this arises

1201
particularly in connection with the sixth report of the Select Committee—that we are not getting the truth on this matter. Having been a member of the Select Committee, I know only too well—I am sure that the Chairman of the Select Committee will keep me right on this—that the Select Committee is cleared for information up to top secret.
Mr. Michael Mates indicated assent.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is nodding his agreement. If that is true, paragraph 9 of the sixth report is extremely disturbing. It says:
"Despite requests for information about the present situation with regard to SSBNs, MoD have not been forthcoming to us in private or in public. In view of the concerns that have been expressed in public, we believe that it would be in the general interest, including that of MoD, to be more candid."
It is one thing to say, "We cannot go into details at a public hearing." It is quite another to deny a Select Committee of the House, cleared to receive information up to top secret, vital information relating to the viability of the strategic deterrent. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has referred to the articles—we have all read them; indeed, I have them here—casting grave doubts on the viability of the Polaris fleet. The Minister owes the House an explanation of the current state of affairs.
Having touched on Rosyth already, let me deal with the vital issue of the future of the naval base, to which the Minister alluded but which he did not discuss in any detail. In the changing strategic environment, it is difficult to assess the importance of Rosyth. Of course, offshore fishing protection and mine counter-measures need a naval base close to important operational areas. But a Navy with about 30 operational frigates and destroyers would be hard put to it to retain Devonport, Portsmouth and Rosyth.
Labour has made much play of keeping Rosyth open because of its importance as an employer in the area. Representing that area, I obviously go along with that. I yield to no one in my desire to protect the economic viability of Fife. We in the Scottish National party have repeatedly warned of the consequences to the Scottish economy of cuts in defence expenditure. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), will confirm no doubt that we have had a series of meetings with Defence Ministers, with the Scottish Office and, last Friday, with the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise.
As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said, there will be a peace dividend, but one of the difficulties with the peace dividend and its distribution is that it will not necessarily help the areas that have devoted so much manpower and expertise to producing defence equipment. That cannot be cured by mere market considerations. Those areas will suffer unless concerted action is taken. That is why the SNP has called for the initiative of a defence diversification fund that would be specifically related to such problem areas.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) will clarify Labour's attitude—and I do not want to hear policy being made on the hoof. Month after month, Labour has raved about the importance of Rosyth. I assume that Labour Members know what they are talking about when they call for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make Rosyth a resignation issue.
1202
We are a year, at the very most, from a general election. Can the Labour Front-Bench spokesman make it olear that Labour would keep Rosyth, and other naval bases, open and fully operational if it gained power in the next year or so? Not much can happen to a naval base in a year. A decision may be made, but it would be utter folly to close a base overnight. It goes without saying that I am opposed to the closure of the base but, at the same time, I am a realist and I recognise that something has to go. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who opened the debate for the Opposition, was obfuscatory on this issue, as on so many others.
I now come to the issue of the strategic deterrent. Time does not permit me to go into all my reasons for opposing the United Kingdom's possession of strategic nuclear weapons or into the absurdity of claiming that a four-boat Trident fleet equipped with United States D5s is essential to our defence needs. Nevertheless, I am interested in the Labour party's posture in relation to the fourth boat. We heard some answers from the hon. Member for Clackmannan earlier today.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness has seen the North West Evening Mail of 20 December 1990, which ran the headline, "Labour Shift Over Trident" and said:
"The Labour party will consider ordering a fourth Trident boat from VSEL if the next general election is held late and construction work on the final element of the British nuclear deterrent is well advanced.
This shift from previous total opposition to Trident Four was hinted at yesterday in an exclusive interview given to the Evening Mail by Labour's Shadow defence spokesman Martin O'Neill."
Mr. Franks: The hon. Gentleman and I both know where the North West Evening Mail is printed and circulated. Unfortunately, when the hon. Gentleman started to read out the article, the hon. Member for Clackmannan made a somewhat rapid exit, but for the benefit of those who have stayed to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech, will he tell the House where that newspaper is printed and circulated?
Mr. Douglas: I am not an authority on these matters—
Mr. Franks: Could it, perhaps, be Barrow?
Mr. Douglas: I have no doubt that it is well circulated in the area. But I am not here to advertise a particular newspaper; I am here as a great seeker after wisdom. The Labour party is very good at asking questions, but not very good at answering them.
Mr. Roland Boyes rose—
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me. I have maintained the 1987 policy. The hon. Gentleman should hand his wheesed for a moment.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Douglas: No, I will not give way. I want to develop my point in relation to Labour party policy.
We all heard Labour Members cheer when it was announced that the United States Poseidon fleet was o withdraw from Holy Loch. Do the same hon. Members intend to cheer when three or four Trident boats come up to Faslane? Will they cheer then, or will they have doubts?

1203
I want to highlight the deep divisions in the Labour party on that issue. I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will listen when I quote from a letter that appeared in Tribune on 14 June 1991. It stated:
"To my considerable surprise I have just read in Hansard for June 4 the statement by Roland Boyes, one of Labour's defence spokesmen, that 'the Trident programme is an integral and important part of Labour Defence policy.'
What was actually agreed in 'Meet the Challenge, Make the Change' at the 1989 Labour Party Conference does not support Roland Boyes' claim. Page 87 reads: 'We regard the procurement of the Trident weapons system as unjustifiiable in defence policy terms … claims of its being an "independent" capability are negated … it is inaccurate to describe Britain's nuclear capability as a deterrent … the only relevant role for Britain's nuclear weapons … is to further the process of international nuclear and conventional disarmament.'
Mr. Boyes has no right to make up policy on the hoof. prospective Labour Candidates find such behaviour very unsettling."
That letter was not signed by any old or young Labour party candidate. The candidate in question was Bruce Kent, the prospective Labour candidate for Oxford, West and Abingdon. I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will tell us who is right. Is it Bruce Kent, who is noted for his continued unilateralist—
Mr. Boyes: I am right.
Mr. Douglas: Well, the hon. Gentleman had better tell Bruce Kent. If there is a quarrel between the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington and Bruce Kent, he had better sort it out. Contrary to Labour's view in 1987, Labour now embraces Trident as an instrument of electoral virility.
Before I consider the issue of marine strategy, I want to refer to Holy Loch. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I have received a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in which he tries to clarify the situation in relation to Holy Loch after the departure of the United States forces. A sentence in that letter disturbs me. It states:
"Improved tourist or leisure facilities at Holy Loch should be entirely compatible with the concept of occasional visits from nuclear submarines, as they arc at other locations."
Who is the Minister trying to kid? May we have some idea, if not tonight then on another occasion, exactly what is meant by the current view of a Z-berth? What vessels with a nuclear capability will be allowed to use those berths? The Minister's letter specifically excludes Royal Navy submarines. What other vessels will come to the Loch when the United States have abandoned it? Will the vessels be French? The people of the Cowal peninsula and elsewhere who are trying to retrieve a desperately difficult situation are entitled to some clarification.
With regard to the general marine strategy, we have a declining Navy and the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) rightly referred to the great concern about our merchant fleet. Our fishery fleet faces severe constraint, we have an almost non-existent shipbuilding industry, and United Kingdom shipping currently faces enormous problems.
We welcome the MOD's invitation to tender for type 23s. However, I want to probe the Minister a little further about that. The Minister said that there would be three tenders. What does that mean? Will there be three for one
1204
yard, one and an option for two, or two and an option for one? What is the ordering pattern? No doubt there will be clarification in the press tomorrow about that, but we are entitled to have some idea of the MOD's plans.
Over and above those general considerations, the people of these islands are entitled to know the Government's intentions for the recruitment and training of future seafaring personnel. That is a serious and important issue which affects not only defence but our economic and trading performance. Cuts in defence spending that are carefully assessed against a changing threat are one thing, but the rundown of shipping, shipbuilding and our capacity to trade is quite another.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will at least address some of the important questions that I have raised. I conclude by thanking the members of the Select Committee on Defence for their work. I only regret that the general work of Select Committees is not appropriately adjudged in the House. Perhaps that is one issue that we will discuss when we consider changes in our procedures and hours.
7.56 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) put the knife into the Labour party very effectively. As an ex-member of the Labour party, he had specialist knowledge which allowed him to do so. He will understand if I do not try to add to his questions. I look forward with great interest to see whether the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can answer any of the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed, but I rather suspect that he will not be able to.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister paid generous and totally appropriate tribute to the men and women of our armed forces who served in the Gulf. I wish to add, from my constituency knowledge, that the families of the men and women who served also deserve generous praise. They did not know when their kinsfolk went to the Gulf that there would be few casualties—and in the case of the Royal Navy, none. They did not know that no chemical or biological weapons would be used. They faced the challenge of watching their loved ones sail off to the Gulf with tremendous determination, courage and calm. That goes for all the families—the wives, parents and children. They all deserve our tributes and praise.
There are many service families and service establishments in my constituency. I am particularly grateful to the personnel in those establishments for allowing me to visit them, for giving up so much of their time, for briefing me and for their hospitality on several occasions—all of which I greatly enjoyed.
Sailors realise that defence is in no sense a job creation agency. They are there to respond to and to deter a threat to our essential interests. What is the threat? First, it remains the Soviet Union. After the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in the last war, the Soviets built up an enormous military-industrial complex, and the power of the generals and those associated with them still remains in the Soviet Union.
NATO responded to that threat, but there is still an imbalance between the Warsaw pact forces and NATO forces of about 3:1 in most arms. Since 1985, there has been a diminution in the threat of the Warsaw pact, and we associate that mainly with Mr. Gorbachev and perestroika. However, it is not just Mr. Gorbachev who is

1205
responsible for the diminution of the Soviet threat. It is also a result of the fact that the Soviet Union is bust—economically, politically and morally. One aspect in respect of which it is not bust, however, is the military—the Soviet Union remains a massive military power.
The CFE negotiations have led to a reduction of army forces in the central plain of Europe, but there is no real indication yet that the Soviet navy is to be diminished in much the same way. There are some signs of diminution, but they are not as considerable as in the army. The Soviet Union continues to have the largest general purpose submarine fleet in the world. It is still building at the rate of about 10 a year. Ten new submarines of an advanced design were built during 1990. There are now plans for further designs with cruise missiles and other armaments. Those submarines cannot conceivably be needed for defence. There is no need whatever for the Soviet Union to have submarines to defend its frontiers with China, Turkey or elsewhere. Those weapons can only be intended for offensive use. Admiral of the fleet, Admiral Chernavin, makes it quite clear that the purpose of the Soviet submarine fleet is to attack NATO sea lanes in the event of a further world war.
That poses a serious threat because of the instability of the Soviet Union. We do not know where the military currently stand in terms of reforms within the Soviet Union. Although 60 per cent. of the production of the defence-industrial complex is now geared to civilian products, the military-industrial complex is still under the command of the military.
Some matters cause serious concern. For instance, it is not fully appreciated that, if the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were permitted to secede from the Soviet Union complex, this would leave the important area of Kaliningrad, with its large Soviet port and hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens, cut off from the rest of the Soviet Union. I cannot imagine that the Soviet Union would be prepared to allow that to happen. Indeed, I have seen reports that admirals and generals would not be prepared to see that happen. Clearly, the Soviet bear has not gone away. That is the first threat.
In a period when the world is shrinking, when weapons are becoming much more effective, and when the means of transport and delivery of weapons are improving all the time, the second threat to us is from tyrants on the make. For example, I refer to Gadaffi, with his support for terrorism—terrorism linked with tyrants on the make can be a potent mixture—Galtieri, and recently, of course, Saddam Hussein. We do not know all the threats that can be posed to us. There is a saying in the Royal Artillery and the Royal Air Force that "it's the one you don't see that gets you". We need to defend ourselves against the one that we cannot see—the unseen threat. Clearly, if we are defending against an unseen threat, the key must be flexibility. That is my approach to our need for naval forces.
First, we have a need for a nuclear deterrent, and the Conservative party stands four-square behind it. Secondly, we need command carriers, frigates and SSN submarines to fulfil our role within NATO to defend the east Atlantic. Thirdly—I am not sufficiently confident of the Government's intentions—we also need flexible smaller ships. We need fast patrol boats, vessels that are suitable for fishery protection and smaller ships capable of operating inshore. In particular, we need more conventional submarines.
1206
I read with keen interest the report of the Select Committee on Defence, the Chairman of which, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) is sitting beside me. That Committee takes the view that conventional submarines are extremely important to our defence need. There was to have been a class of 12 Upholder submarines, but that has now been cut to four. I have been following that class of submarine with keen interest. I visited Barrow in Furness some time ago, and I visited Birkenhead to see the second-in-class Unseen under construction. I have been keen that it should be stationed, as it currently is, with No. 1 submarine squadron in Gosport.
Much of the role of those conventional submarines is not widely publicised. I fear that there may be a danger that people regard conventional submarines as second-rate nuclear submarines which do not have sufficient performance. People may not realise that SSK hunter-killer conventional submarines, the diesel-electric Upholder class, have special roles and can fulfil special tasks. Those special tasks include listening in to all sorts of communications. Because the Upholder class is so very quiet, they can travel where other submarines might be perceived. Of course, they have a special forces capacity and are capable of landing special forces behind enemy lines.
It seems very peculiar that we should currently be contemplating a diesel-electric conventional submarine class of only four submarines, when we needed two, for use in the Gulf conflict. Otis and Opossum served in the Gulf area and returned in the camouflage used in that area. It is peculiar that we should have used as many as two submarines in that small area and that we should now believe that we can fulfil that important role in the future with only four.
Paragraph 4 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence, which was published today, states that Flag Officer Submarines and the Ministry of Defence
"should look at ways of increasing professional, parliamentary and public understanding of the Submarine Service."
I am not too bothered about public understanding of the submarine service—I do not think that it needs to blow its trumpet in that way. I should be entirely satisfied if I felt that those taking decisions on the ordering of submarines fully understood the situation. It concerns me that we should have only four submarines so planned.
My main point is about shore establishments and ship bases. I suppose that a planner, starting with a clean sheet of paper, would choose to base most of the fleet in Scapa Flow, because it would be near to the eastern Atlantic and the area where its operations are most likely to be concentrated. Of course, that is not an option, because we have to start with where we are. Most of the shore-based Navy is based in the Gosport-Portsmouth area. There are major establishments in my constituency—for example, HMS Sultan, HMS Collingwood, HMS Dolphin, HMS Daedalus, HMS Centurion and HMS Hasler. All of them are centres for naval training. Therefore, they are areas in which Royal Navy people will know that they will spend much of their shore time, because training is obviously the main activity for shore-based service men.
Whereas the Ministry of Defence previously built housing for naval personnel as they travelled around the world, increasingly in recent years naval personnel have chosen instead to buy their own houses. To put it very crudely, the Royal Navy lives in south Hampshire—and

1207
rightly so, as in most cases personnel know that they will be based in the Gosport-Portsmouth area rather than anywhere else because that is where the major training establishments are. [Interruption.] I hear noises from others who have interests in this matter. Perhaps they will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Training establishments are predominantly in the Gosport-Portsmouth area and naval personnel have chosen to live there so as to be near their place of work.
Can we move the men and women of the armed forces? The answer is no, because their homes are where they are, their wives are there, and their children are at school. Service personnel wish to remain where they are. We no longer have press gangs or Royal Marines posted on the fo'c'sles of ships to shoot deserters, so we need to make sure that people want to stay in the Royal Navy.
The name of the game in the Royal Navy is retention. The great enemy is premature voluntary retirement. Service personnel are now highly skilled and highly trained. The longer they remain in the Royal Navy, the higher their skill levels will be, the more highly trained they will be, and the more valuable they will therefore be to civilian employers outside. Good personnel practice therefore demands that we seek to keep people in the Navy—retention is the name of the game.
We should try to do all that we can to make the Navy an attractive career, not only to those just joining the Navy, but to those who are trained and skilled and have years of experience behind them because they are the people that we need to keep in the Navy. Therefore, the logic to me is irrefutable—we should move more ships to the Portsmouth area and focus more of our onshore activities at the onshore establishments in that area. If we are constrained in our resources, it is logical to focus those resources in one main area.
Of those local establishments, HMS Sultan is the marine engineering school. As it is central to our marine engineering, I do not think that there is any question of its being threatened. In my view, exactly the same applies to HMS Collingwood in relation to weapons engineering and to HMS Dolphin in relation to submarine training. It follows from what I have said that I believe that No. 1 submarine squadron should continue to be based at HMS Dolphin. The previous Labour Government carried out a detailed study of the possibility of moving HMS Centurion, which is the pay and postings centre, to Glasgow, but that was ruled out when it was found that the computer facilities at Centurion were central to those operations. It can be argued that more personnel functions should be moved to the Gosport-Centurion area to take advantage of those facilities.
Royal naval hospital Haslar has benefited from a considerable spending programme and has superb facilities. It would be therefore be logical to base more of the Royal Navy's medical services at Haslar. If we are focusing our main activity on the Portsmouth-Gosport area, as I hope is the intention, it is essential that we maintain HMS Daedalus, which has many roles—among them its unique facility to provide a runway for fixed-wing aircraft, and its slipway which provides a unique facility on the south coast for amphibious operations and which can be used for a wide range of military activities.
1208
Similarly, as both the Royal Naval aircraft yard at Fleetlands and the Royal Naval armaments depot are doing very good jobs, I see no reason why they should be changed. Those facilities have the advantage of the spirit and atmosphere of the Royal Navy. There is good teamwork with mutual respect at all levels. Many of the civilians working in those establishments have served in the armed forces.
My final point relates to the people who serve in the Royal Navy. The quality of training will continue to rise as the Royal Navy concentrates on high technology. That will be matched by personnel policies that are designed to promote initiative on the one hand and reliability on the other. The Royal Navy now has more sophisticated equipment per man and woman than ever before, and provides more training for its use. It remains an exceptional career for adventure and excitement. I am always delighted to see the young men and women in my constituency taking advantage of those opportunities. The defence of the realm is a noble and worthy cause and, for the individual, it can continue to provide unique challenges, travel and comradeship.
8.12 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for his stout defence of the work force at Scott Lithgow in relation to the Challenger. As he rightly said, the Select Committee on Defence has now reported that the blame lies with the Ministry of Defence, not with the local work force. The hon. Gentleman knows the shipbuilding industry on the upper and lower Clyde perhaps better than I do, because he served his apprenticeship there, while I served mine elsewhere. He knows as well as I do the stigma that still clings to that yard because the tabloids heaped the blame on the work force at the time. As I have said, I am grateful to the Select Committee for belatedly pointing out that much of the blame, as was admitted, rests with the Ministry of Defence. The report states that a rewiring problem could be blamed on the management of the yard, but that had nothing to do with the work force.
That work force are now dispersed. Some of their most highly skilled people are now in Australia, Canada and America. An electrician whom I know and who worked on that ship is now a chargehand in a small yard in Sydney, having emigrated with his wife and young children. Other members of that work force work for Vickers at Barrow. Although, like all Lancashire people, the people of Barrow are extremely hospitable and friendly folk, those employees would naturally like to return to the Clyde. However, the yard now employs only 30 or 40 people whereas in its prime it had a work force of about 5,500.
Until fairly recently, Scott Lithgow at Greenock was the finest conventional submarine builder in the world. Most submariners who have worked in diesel electric submarines will say that a Scott-built vessel is one of the finest. That fact was readily acknowledged by the Australian navy when it purchased a vessel. Although that is Scott Lithgow's position at the moment, I hope that the yard can be resuscitated, perhaps for other work.
I thank the Minister for his letter about the invitation to tender for the type 23 frigates. As he knows, Yarrow is on the upper Clyde while my constituency is on the lower Clyde, but, as several of my constituents work in the upper

1209
Clyde yard, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that I hope that Yarrow wins all three orders. Two would do nicely for the time being, although, as a realist, I suppose that I should say that just one would do.
Yarrow is one of the finest warship building yards in western Europe. At the moment, it is in serious difficulties. However, I am not here to make a special plea—not even for my constituents who work in the yard—because I think that Yarrow can win one or two if not all three of the orders on merit. It is a leading yard in terms of design and has a first-class work force and management under the leadership of Sir Robert Easton. The work force will be spurred on by the Minister's announcement today. Incidentally, I hope that it goes without saying that I kept the contents of that letter to myself.
I turn now to the Select Committee's sixth report, "Royal Navy Submarines", which is excellent. I am not an ex-Navy man, although my father served with the RNVR as the skipper of a minesweeper in Scapa Flow. Ii might make sense to have a naval establishment there, but I do not wish to cross swords on that with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). My family has been associated with the Royal Navy for generations principally because grandfathers and great-grandfathers on both sides have been fishermen and have served their country in the Navy in times of war.
That leads me to ask about the position regarding our fisheries protection vessels. From information given to me in a written answer, I believe that there is no intention in the near future of building replacement vessels. The men of that fleet do an important job in protecting our fishing grounds as, indeed, do our fishermen themselves when the need arises. The worst predators on fishing grounds are the Spanish fishing fleet. I am not hostile to the people of Spain, but I become angry on occasion at the activities of some of the Spanish fishermen, especially off the west coast of Scotland.
There is a need to look again at the procurement policy for fishery protection vessels. If I may make another constituency point—I am afraid that it is that sort of speech—the finest fisheries protection vessel building yard is, of course, Fergusons, which happens to be in Port Glasgow. It produces fine fisheries protection vessels.
Part VIII of the Select Committee report on Royal Navy submarines deals specifically with the sinking of the Antares, which was a terrible tragedy. I knew the skipper, Jimmy Russell, personally. He was a constituent of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who is not in her place. He was from Carradale. He was a member of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. That association honoured me by inviting me to be one of its honorary presidents, an honour which I was delighted to accept and which I still hold, along with the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
The report contains some sensible words and some important recommendations on the tragedy. In paragraph 104, it states that, the day after the sinking and the loss of the four-man crew,
"the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced that, in addition to a Department of Transport inquiry, there would he a Royal Navy Board of Inquiry."
Under Scots law there must be a fatal accident inquiry into the sinking of the Antares, because four men lost their lives as they went about their employment. Has the Minister been given any idea by the Scottish Office or, perhaps more
1210
importantly, the Lord Advocate's office of when that fatal accident inquiry is likely to take place? There must be such an inquiry. I cannot understand the delay, especially as the Royal Navy board of inquiry has published its report.
I believe that the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock has prepared a report about the deaths of those four inshore fishermen. Can I assume—I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the officers and crew involved in that terrible tragedy, which, of course, was an accident, will give evidence at the inquiry? Presumably the logbook will have to be handed over to the sheriff who conducts the inquiry.
Paragraph 104 of the report also states:
"While fully appreciating the necessity for thorough examination of the implications of the findings of the Board, we are also mindful of the desire of all those involved to see the issues dealt with speedily as well as properly. Given the Minister's earlier assurances, the delay in publishing the summary has been unacceptable."
I agree with that statement. The summary has now been published, but I am mindful of those sentiments. All those involved are anxious to see the issues dealt with speedily and properly. In the civil context, that means that a fatal accident inquiry must be set up as soon as possible. The widows and families of those four men deserve no less than that an inquiry be set up as soon as possible. I hope that it goes without saying that the close relatives of the men lost in that terrible tragedy will, if need be, obtain legal aid so that their interests can be adequately represented at the inquiry.
The report deals with other aspects of the tragedy. I promise that I shall not detain the House much longer, but this matter deeply worries those of us who represent constituencies along the firth of Clyde. I hope that it deeply worries every hon. Member who is present tonight. As an honorary president of the Clyde fishermen's association, I have views which are in conflict with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), for example. I disagree with a few of the statements made in the report. For example, in paragraph 106 of its otherwise excellent report, referring to the difficulties of submarine sonar in detecting fishing gear, the Committee states:
"We accept that there are good reasons why this should be so".
The report rightly says that pelagic trawls are especially difficult to detect. From my knowledge of fishing methods, I know that that is correct. With pelagic trawls there are few if any heavy metal objects to record an impression, whereas with demersal gear, which, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has heavy trawl doors to keep the mouth of the net as wide open as possible, the sonar equipment on the submarines can pick up a signal. I submit that the equipment is clumsy. I think that I am right in saying—no doubt I will be challenged if I am incorrect—that the Antares was bottom-trawling when its gear was snagged. It did not have pelagic gear down. Pelagic gear is mid-water gear which must float at a certain level above the sea bed—hence the absence of heavy materials. The Antares was fishing the bottom, yet the doors and other heavy equipment were not picked up by the sonar equipment.
In paragraph 106 the report states that:
"the solution must lie in deconfliction of submarines and fishing boats".
I can only suggest that "deconfliction" is a military term. I have not had a chance to look in a dictionary today because I have been in Committee, but presumably

1211
deconfliction of submarines and fishing boats means keeping them apart. If that is what is meant, I agree wholeheartedly. The submarines that I see almost every day of my life in and around the Firth of Clyde, when I am away from this place, are massive in comparison with fishing vessels the size of the Antares, which was a 16 m trawler. The huge nuclear vessels on the Firth of Clyde should be kept clear of the fishing vessels.
The report goes on:
"We are confident that submarine commanding officers go to great lengths to avoid confrontation with fishing boats and welcome the instruction given to avoid vessels engaged in fishing by as much distance as is navigationally prudent".
I accept that wholeheartedly, because it is right and proper.
When I visited Holy Loch I implored the United States navy commanders—my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton will confirm this because he was there—to submit their submariners to refresher courses, to acquire among other things knowledge of different fishing methods used by our fishermen in the approach to the Firth of Clyde and elsewhere in inshore and shallow waters. I was assured by them and by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that they would ensure that training programmes would familiarise United States submarine commanders with the gear used by fishing vessels.
That is important, because when a vessel, even a quite small one, is fishing, the gear is often hundreds of yards behind the vessel. The submarine can pick up the vessel and detect that it is moving slowly, and hence may be towing gear, but it cannot pick up the gear unless, as the report rightly says, appliances are fitted to the fishing gear. In other words, unless the gear is fitted with pingers, as the Select Committee calls them colloquially—electronic bleepers fitted to the heads of the nets to ward off submarines—the gear cannot be detected.
I have the greatest respect for the submarine commanders and I feel deeply sorry fo the officers concerned in this case because the vessel was engaged in a training exercise. It was almost at the end of the exercise when the incident happened, and I can imagine how dreadful the man in charge must feel. He may be facing a court martial and the whole matter may be sub judice. Perhaps I should not say more about it. He and his crew have my sympathy.
In seeking an answer to the problem, I part company utterly from the Defence Committee, which says in paragraph 107:
"It is unrealistic to expect submarines to give up submerged operations in coastal and inshore waters."
I do not expect the members of the Committee to accept my view, which is that submarines when entering or leaving the firth of Clyde should always be on the surface. When sailing—submarine commanders call it transiting; I call it steaming, an old-fashioned word—through traditional fishing grounds, submarines should remain on the surface. I know that the Minister of State disagrees with me about that. He argues that, for security and operational reasons and for reasons concerned with the testing of equipment following the refitting of vessels, it is necessary at times for them to dive or submerge in shallow waters.
Shallow waters anywhere around the coastline are fishing grounds. My plea tonight—I reiterate it—is that,
1212
when they are steaming through traditional fishing grounds, they should stay on the surface, particularly following the collapse of the so-called cold war. It does no harm for them to stay on the surface. Once they are through the fishing grounds they can dive and carry out their training exercises. They should not be doing that in and around the firth of Clyde.
I have the greatest respect for, and trust in, the members of the Royal Navy of all ranks. I have a great deal of sympathy for submariners going into and out of the Clyde. They must now be dreadfully worried every time they go through fishing grounds. The massive burden that has been placed on their shoulders could be lifted to some extent by a clear instruction to them that, when sailing through fishing grounds, they must remain on the surface. That would be a simple—some would say too simple—solution and it would bring great relief to the fishermen of the Clyde and their wives and children.
I hope that the Minister will think again about allowing submarines to sail through fishing grounds close to the sea bed instead of being on the surface. He should also consider shifting the training areas away from the traditional fishing grounds.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Michael Mates.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate, on account of Monday night, that I am not the flavour of the week. I raise this point of order not by way of a personal complaint. May we have an explicit statement from the Chair that the convention that has existed for many years—that hon. Members who hear the opening speeches take precedence over hon. Members who come into the Chamber at 7.30—no longer operates?
I appreciate the difficulty of the members of the Defence Committee and do not think that what has occurred has been their fault or the fault of their Chairman. Frankly, the Government should arrange business in conjunction with the Committee before alighting on a day that is likely to affect the Committee's activities. May we have a statement from the Chair to the effect that the convention no longer operates?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair must take into account a whole series of factors in deciding who to call in debates. I cannot go further than that.
8.36 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: It had been my intention at the outset to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for not having been present for the opening speeches, for reasons which I gave to you last week, before the members of the Defence Select Committee left for a visit to France. I am sorry that we were not able to leave Brest, the French naval submarine base, until 5.30 pm, and for that reason I was not here for the opening speeches. But I have read the Minister's speech, and I shall comment on it.
It is fitting that, on the day we publish our report on submarines, we should have had such an interesting and constructive day at the French navy's nuclear submarine base at Brest. As the House may know, the French have six ballistic missile submarines, three of which are required to be at sea at one time. We have four, of which at least one is at sea on patrol at one time. It was instructive for us to

1213
see the different, although similar, way in which they operate the only other strategic underwater European nuclear deterrent.
After today's visit, and a week of discussions in Paris with our colleagues at the defence committee there, meeting the French chief of the defence staff and the Minister of Defence, I came away having learnt one lesson. It is that in this area we might perhaps now, in the new situation in which we find ourselves, be able to co-operate to the best effect, if only we could get over the hurdle of the fact that we have always done things one way, and individually, while the French have done them another way, individually as well.
I see the most hugely fruitful area for co-operation. I know that both navies are more than ready to co-operate. Indeed, the Royal Navy and the French navy work closely at sea, where perhaps matters are less politically sensitive. There would be no difficulty if we, the politicians, and the Ministers in both Governments, could show the necessary will be perhaps drawing a line under what had happened when the cold war ended and see whether we can do things differently in the coming decade. Both nations wish to continue with our deterrent policy. That makes every sense to us, as it does to all the parties in France.
Given the changing situation, there is scope for huge financial savings if only we could co-operate more closely—indeed, we do not co-operate at all—in terms of the number of boats that we would need, the amount of time that they would need to be at sea, the number of crews and many other matters. That would be a fruitful area for us to address rather more robustly than we have been doing.
I know from my conversations yesterday with Mr. Joxe, the French Defence Minister, that he had some good talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, when they were in Dunkirk on Monday. We could be at the opening of a new era of co-operation between ourselves and the French, who have traditionally been perhaps a shade too independent for anyone's tastes. I hope that we will not let that occasion slip by.
Because I do not want to trespass on my hon. Friend's indulgence, I shall be brief, but I wish to make a few comments about our submarine report. Its publication was brought forward to today so that the House would have it for the debate, and I hope that hon. Members have found it useful. We have worked hard to produce it and are grateful to all those who helped us: to the Royal Navy at Northwood and the headquarters of the fleet at Gosport, to Devonport, to VSEL at Barrow which we visited, to Rolls-Royce and Associates and to the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the House will find it a useful and perhaps an authoritative report.
As regards the SSN20 concept, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced that we shall shortly begin studies of a design of a new SSN to replace the Swiftsure class around the turn of the century, based upon the Trafalgar class. I think that we foreshadowed that in our report. We said, "So far, so good," but we also made it clear how important it was not only for a firm statement of intent to be made but for clear guidance on the time scales involved to be given to retain the sectors of UK industry that are vital to production. As far as I can tell from his speech, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has not done that. I hope that he will realise that it is uncertainty over that which is causing most of the trouble and some frustration.
1214
I must emphasise another point that we make in paragraph 46 of our report, and perhaps the Minister would like to comment on whether the Ministry's study will be looking at some version of the PWR2 to power a submarine on which some £400 million or £500 million has already been spent. It seems inconceivable to us that that should not be the case.
As regards the nuclear submarine fleet—both SSNs and SSBNs—a problem of increasing concern can be referred to in a word—disposal. I know that that problem is exercising the minds of the Government. I mentioned it today to Admiral Orsini, who commands the French nuclear submarine fleet today and I asked him how the French were coping with the problem. It may surprise the House that he told me that two major French sea ports, Cherbourg and Brest, are fighting for the honour of having the first retired SSBN in their harbour as a museum so that the public could see it and it could be a symbol of the association between those sea ports and the navy that they serve. I found that an encouraging suggestion.
Alas, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) is not here at the moment, but as he was asking for everything to be retained in his constituency, I wonder whether I might suggest—tongue not very far in cheek—that the Royal Navy submarine museum there should accommodate one of our retired SSBN submarines, on which a great deal of money will have to be spent, as is being spent on the Dreadnought. Why not have it there, so that the public can see where their money goes and what an excellent job our deterrent force has done? It is food for thought; we mentioned it en passant in our report, but I am reinforced by what I heard today from an admiral of the French navy and I wish that our public were as robust about nuclear submarines as the French seem to be.
Another matter that we mentioned in the report is the Government's proposed reduction in the number of Upholder class conventional diesel class submarines from 12 to four. As we were compiling the report, we looked for any sign that the tasks of the Royal Navy submarine force would be reduced, and we could find no such sign. There is certainly talk that the threat has been reduced, but there has not been a single reduction in the directed tasks that the Royal Navy is carrying out. Yet the surface and submarine fleet is being considerably reduced. That can only mean either that the new small fleet will be much more stretched than it was before or that it will not do the job properly.
I hope that there will be the time and the will for the Government to look again at the Upholder class, because four is below the barest minimum when one thinks of the reconnaissance tasks, of listening in the anti-submarine warfare role, of intelligence collection in session with special forces as we understand might have happened in the Gulf, to say nothing of training and trials exercises and our submarine force's commitment to NATO. That, out of all the decisions that we are questioning, seems to be arbitrary, and one cannot but be left with the conclusion that it was totally driven by the Treasury's desire to cut the defence budget rather than by any logical decision by the Ministry of Defence that the Upholder submarines can manage to do the task that they still have to do with so many fewer than planned.
I was going to add to the remarks by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about fishing, but he covered the subject so well; while he finds fault with our choice of words, I think he made a

1215
well-considered and balanced conclusion on a difficult situation. I suspect that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) will want to refer to that subject if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not go down that road.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend said:
"'Options for Change' has confirmed the importance of the amphibious force, and we intend to maintain this capability. We have been studying the best way to maintain the capability … and expect to make announcements shortly."
I have questioned many officials from the Ministry of Defence about what "shortly" means. Let me remind my hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, told the Select Committee, in terms, that, if he had not made an announcement by the end of December 1990, he would consider that he was not giving the Navy enough time to make the necessary dispositions to keep the amphibious force efficient. That date is getting on for six or seven months ago. Even with the most optimistic interpretation of "shortly", I suspect that it will be two or three months before the Minister makes a decision. That is very nearly a year late.
Unless the situation has changed—and no one has told us that it has—the forecast of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr when he was Secretary of State for Defence will come true. We are going to let down our amphibious forces; the two ships Fearless and Intrepid are rapidly becoming more out of date and obsolete.
It is necessary to take a decision. I know that it is a difficult one and I know that it is likely to be expensive, whatever it is. However, the worst service that the Minister could do to our very fine amphibious forces and to the Navy would be to delay that decision, tough as it may be, beyond the very near future. I hope that he will take that remark in the spirit in which it is intended. It is not a criticism. I know the difficulties that he is going through, but it is better to say something now than to leave it all in limbo and to leave our amphibious force, which has been the cause of so much pride in the past, to decay.
8.49 pm
Mr. John McFall: Like the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), I must apologise to the House for joining the debate late, but I communicated with Mr. Speaker last week to advise him of my situation. Nevertheless, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Like the hon. Member for East Hampshire, I found my visit to France very enlightening, particularly in the light of defence developments in that country.
I should like to address a number of issues this evening, but I will confine myself mainly to a constituency matter involving the Trident project, which is one of the largest engineering projects in western Europe—second only to the channel tunnel.
Last week, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding the number of projects issued by the officer at Faslane and Coalport on a nil value basis. He replied:
"Our contractual arrangements at the Clyde submarine base development are commercially confidential."
Although I accept that answer to some extent, there is great public concern in Scotland about that development. The Glasgow Herald in particular has reported on that
1216
issue, and only last week, Construction News reported that continuous design changes had increased the operational costs at the base. The Glasgow Herald additionally reported that the contract was "careering out of control".
I cannot say whether that is true, but firms in my constituency and elsewhere are going bust, and many people are losing their jobs. Firms have been put into receivership because of what is known as subby bashing—that is, subcontractor bashing—at the Clyde submarine base. It is suggested that main contractors and some principal subcontractors are contravening Ministry of Defence codes of practice.
One case reported by the Glasgow Herald concerns C. and G. Roofing of Warminster, which was a subcontractor to Tarmac Construction Ltd. C. and G. was originally taken on with a start date of December 1988, but design problems caused the date to be put back. As a result, in June 1990 C. and G. submitted a claim to the Ministry of Defence for £873,000 in respect of delay and disruption in the period to April 1990.
When C. and G. was first taken on, it planned its contract and the number of employees that it would have on site, but the delay meant a doubling of its work force, which produced severe cash flow problems. Consequently, the company approached Tarmac for assistance, and it advanced C. and G. £80,000, on condition that Tarmac could claw it back over the next three months with payments of £25,000, £25,000 and £30,000 respectively.
C. and G. repaid the full £80,000 over three months, but was required to enter into a works contract with Tarmac that seems to conflict with the general conditions of Government contracts for building and civil engineering works. Its terms were much more onerous. It provided for a 2 per cent. discount to Tarmac on the contract. One paragraph from that contract requires C. and G. to accept a back-to-back situation for circumstances and costs resulting from a delay to the subcontractors, whereby it could recover from Tarmac only 60 per cent.
"of all moneys paid by the authorities to Tarmac against revised submissions for the circumstances outlined in Tarmac's conditions.
That condition means that Tarmac could retain 40 per cent. of the £873,000 that C. and G. claimed from the Ministry of Defence, in addition to receiving a 2 per cent. discount on every subsequent job undertaken on site by C. and G. C. and G. was compelled to sign on the dotted line if it wanted to survive financially, but it is possible that Tarmac will make more than £300,000 from the company.
C. and G. received its last payment from Tarmac in December 1990, on 1 February 1991 C. and G. laid off all its directly employed labour and by 1 April it had gone into receivership. I want the Minister to investigate that case, because it seems on the surface to be scandalous. Who takes responsibility in such circumstances? Is it Tarmac, as a main contractor, or the Properties Services Agency? That incident has such serious implications that the Minister cannot claim commercial confidentiality. People are losing their jobs daily and firms are going bust, and it is no use anyone hiding behind the main contractor or the PSA. I am not interested in the Minister drawing blood—only in his sorting the situation out. I want him to investigate and to give a definitive answer so that commercial propriety can be adhered to.
I have received letters from a number of other concerns. The Glasgow Herald reported also the case of Wilkie

1217
Reinforcements, which claims that it is still owed £700,000 by Tarmac for work done at the base. The company's owner is quoted as saying:
"The exact figure is £702,433·47. It is a figure that is engraved on my heart, and it still haunts me."
That firm also had to contend with design delays to the extent that it has outstanding claims against the two main projects in Faslane and Carlport, which have accumulated to more than £3·5 million over three years.
Another local contractor who wrote to me is owed almost £12,000, which has accumulated over 14 months. If something is not done, that local business will go bust as well. One of my hon. Friends gave me the details of another firm which is in dispute with Taylor Woodrow. That subcontractor was asked by Taylor Woodrow to sign on the dotted line for a certain amount of money in complete settlement of any outstanding dues. The sum offered was £80,000 below the amount that the company was totally owed. Nevertheless, that subcontractor was compelled to sign. Taylor Woodrow imposed agreement because it had no recourse to the Ministry of Defence and could do nothing else in the circumstances. Those are extremely worrying examples.
Will the Minister take up the issues of the unjustifiably high discounts that appear to be extracted from subcontractors who are in considerable financial difficulty; of main contractors not matching payments to the resources allocated by subcontractors, and of the possible failure of these firms to prosecute claims through the PSA on behalf of the subcontractors as is contractually required? It would appear that conditions 15, 16 and 17 of the code of practice for subcontracting issued by the Ministry of Defence could be contravened. Will the Minister investigate those matters and report back to us?
I have already mentioned supervising officers' instructions being issued at nil value. Those evaluations are carried out and examined by a number of people: the consultant who raises the supervising officer's instructions, the PSA, the quantity surveyor, the outside consultant, and Wimpey—the supervising officer. They require four signatures. About 60,000 supervising officers' instructions have been issued during the project, with more than 6,000 on the ship lift. Even if a small number of them have been issued at nil value, it means that something is seriously wrong with the project and, somewhere down the line, some poor subcontractor or possibly a main contractor will be the loser. That appears to newspapers and others to be a deliberate busting of subcontractors. I hope that that is not so. Will the Minister look into that as quickly as possible?
Our sixth report on Royal Navy submarines mentions their defects. I raised that issue a year ago, but the Ministry of Defence has let it fester. Paragraph 9 of today's report from the Select Committee states:
"MOD has reassured us on two recent occasions that the operation of the strategic deterrent has continued uninterrupted with at least one SSBN remaining on patrol. It is, however, readily apparent that HMS Renown, one of the Resolution class submarines, has been in refit for considerably longer than anticipated. Despite requests for information about the present situation with regard to SSBNs, MOD have not been forthcoming to us in private or in public. In view of the concerns that have been expressed in public, we believe that it would be in the general interest, including that of MOD, to be more candid."
The Guardian newspaper today contained an article on those issues in relation to Polaris, headed
1218
"Polaris faults scupper guarantee of keeping nuclear deterrent at sea".
It is general talk that only one submarine is ready and on patrol at all times. One has been in Rosyth and will not be out for another year or two, which means that it will have been in refit for four years—well beyond the normal time taken for refits.
It has been suggested that another submarine has been tied up at Faslane because, as The Guardian mentions, it has a weak hull structure. Again, it has been suggested that Revenge has a crack in it and has been ground down and that Resolution, the oldest of the submarines, is the only one on patrol.
It does the Minister of Defence no justice to hide information from the Select Committee on Defence or the general public. A safety issue was mentioned in The Guardian today. Jack Dromey, the national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and Paul Noon, the assistant general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists say that they would not allow their workers' health to be jeopardised by letting them face excessive radiation doses to get Polaris submarines back to sea. Whether civilian or naval personnel are asked to do that, it is important that it should not be allowed to happen. The Minister should meet the union representatives to discuss this important issue.
Paragraph 76 of the Select Committee report issued today mentions radiation, and states:
"The recent increases in exposure levels at Devonport and Faslane are exceptions to a generally favourable and downward trend."
Will the Minister give us an assurance that those radiation levels for last year were just a hiatus and nothing else? Will he assure me that, if there are defects to be attended to, neither civilians nor naval personnel will be put in jeopardy?
It ill behoves the Ministry of Defence not to answer such questions, particularly as its officials appeared before the Select Committee and said time and again that they needed four boats to form an effective deterrent. Issues of credibility and safety are involved, and I want the utmost assurance from the Minister tonight that he will look into them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned fishing. We dealt with that in our report. We were impressed by the skill, competence and endeavour of the sailors and captains of those ships in avoiding fishing boats. They performed a difficult and highly technical task.
There has been an element of glasnost in solving this problem and I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on introducing the notification procedure for which the Clyde fishermen have been lobbying. I was privileged to be at a meeting between the Minister of State and the Clyde fishermen on that issue. I understand that it has been announced that the notification procedure is to extend outwith the Clyde, but I have been told by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that the extension is not enough, and I defer to her local knowledge on that. Perhaps the Minister could have another look at the matter.
The Navy is making great efforts to avoid fishing boats, but I should like the notification procedure to be enlarged and I should like to see technical developments going ahead. I understand that the fishermen and naval

1219
personnel are dealing with that at Faslane. The Select Committee has had a busy Session, and I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the debate.
9.6 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement for his kind words about Portsmouth. The Gulf conflict was the second time in a decade that people from the Hot Walls had to count service men going out. Thank God this time the number of people coming back tallied with the number who left. The Falklands conflict and the Gulf war showed that the Royal Navy had insufficient ships to be on station for a long time, including the time that it takes to reach a centre of operations. In its careful analysis of the Gulf war, the Ministry of Defence should look not only at the effectiveness of the weapons, the weapons system, the ships and the men but at the strain that the conflict placed upon the naval reserves. None of us expected Iraq to collapse as soon as the offensive began, but if the war had gone on much longer, our naval forces could have faced difficulties. The threat from the east has been reduced, but we must make sure that the Royal Navy has the ability to respond to future commitments.
The Minister spoke about putting three new type 23 frigates out to tender. I hope that he did not think that I was being aggressive when I interrupted his speech to ask about the possibility of building one of those ships on the south coast. We all know why major shipbuilding orders in recent years have been directed to the north, but the economic circumstances which led to that have changed and we need a level playing field—or perhaps I should say a level, calm sea. I was grateful for my hon. Friend's straightforward answer that the competition will be open and fair, which is all that anyone can ask.
The fleet, especially the surface fleet, will be smaller. Therefore, our vessels must be more ready for operations and more capable in service. The modernisation of the fleet and the reduction in the average age of service vessels will be an important feature of the next decade. As we reduce the number of ships on active service, we must ensure that the average age of vessels falls. The obvious advantage is that more modern vessels are usually more able and powerful and require smaller crews. It is important to remember that important savings can be made by reducing not only manpower but vessels.
We shall need extreme flexibility and skill in the management of the uniformed service men and non-uniformed back-up services in dockyards, especially at the fleet maintenance and repair base at Portsmouth. We have such flexibility between blue jackets and civilians at the naval base, but I want the widest possible flexibility at sea, which is why I was disturbed to hear a comment that appeared to disparage the role of women at sea. The Wrens should be judged on their ability to perform any duty on land or sea according to their technical competence, not some imaginary basis linked to their gender.
Young women in the Royal Navy do not expect to be protected from the harsh realities of naval life. They want to be accepted as equal partners. I trust that we shall use
1220
their skills to the full and will not take a patronising view, which is sometimes taken by the press, of the role that they can play in the sea-going ships of the Royal Navy.
Flexibility is necessary on shore. I know that the Minister will not announce his decisions about the naval bases at Devonport, Portsmouth or Rosyth, but it is important that he reaches an early decision on management of the fleet maintenance and repair organisation at Portsmouth. Management need flexibility to show that they can effectively and efficiently use the capacity that must be maintained at all times to deal with problems in crises, but maintenance and repair facilities cannot be sufficient only for peace time beause they would be inadequate in a crisis.
There must be a way of maintaining and using those facilities. If the opportunity to tender for jobs that management such as at FMRO recognise are available, the Minister could retain capacity at places such as the naval base at Portsmouth and ensure that it is effective not only in a crisis but in more peaceful circumstances.
The naval base at Portsmouth is a great haven for the Royal Navy. There is no reason why it should not be a place where work is carried out on other countries' warships and on civil vessels. If the capacity exists, it should be possible for us to tender for that work. Never again should a British warship be taken from Portsmouth naval base to be repaired elsewhere when there is the capacity and the ability to work on her at Portsmouth, as there was with HMS Southampton.
The time has come for flexibility and for management on the spot to judge what Portsmouth has the capacity to do, to tender and to show its efficiency. In that way, the smaller, leaner fleets will be backed up effectively.
9.14 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall share the time remaining, because I strongly believe that hon. Members who have sat through the debate should have time to speak.
First, there should be a two-day debate, as there was after the Crimean war, the Jameson raid, the first world war, the second world war and the Falklands war, summing up the pros and cons of what this country did in the Gulf.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to investigate the health of people on our ships. I received a letter stating:
"My son is out there with the RFA"—
Royal Fleet Auxiliary—
"and has had a chest infection and a rash on his face".
If there were more time, I would read out more. Health is an urgent matter. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that the problem was equivalent to the effect of only "20 cigarettes a day", as I repeated in a question at column 419 of Hansard of 6 June this year. The Under-Secretary of State for Health referred me to the following as consequences of that number of cigarettes per day: cerebrovascular disease; cancer of the lip, oral cavity and pharynx; cancer of the oesophagus; cancer of the larynx; cancer of the pancreas; and peripheral vascular disease. They are the threats to our people out there.
Thirdly, I repeat my question about Dr. Downing. The Government have done nothing since my visits to Ministers to get the major expert to look at the coral atolls. If only they would put the same effort into considering the ecological consequences as they did into Operation Desert Storm, things would be that much better.

1221
Before talking about the Navy's role, we should know what the perceived threat is. In particular, what is the perceived threat from Iraq's so-called nuclear capacity? We have heard a great deal about Tuleitha and the lack of monitoring. Will the Government investigate?
If time permitted, I would have gone into the issue of Samarra and chemical weapons. If one is to have a force, especially a rapid reaction force, one had better understand what the perceived threat is. We should be given an explanation of what is happening with the rapid reaction force.
Finally, I hope that the Navy will do something in the light of a Harvard medical report on what is happening in Iraq. The Americans say that 170,000 children under five will die this year because of waterborne diseases. It is high time we lifted sanctions. The Navy should be used to bring medical supplies to kids. It is not their fault that Saddam Hussein leads their country.
I said that I would share the time, and I shall keep my promise.
9.17 pm
Dame Janet Fookes: I shall condense my remarks considerably owing to the short time available.
I am increasingly disenchanted with the "Options for Change" exercise. I am not confident that it reflects our needs for our armed services, and I see the hand of the Treasury coming down more heavily than I would like. It means that there is considerable uncertainty among the armed forces and the support staff behind them. That is extremely bad for morale, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State makes the final decisions as soon as possible. If he does not, I fear that the best will show the way with their feet—they will go out—and we shall have the devastating prospect of losing our best and most experienced men and women just when we need to retain them.
I wish to refer to the support staff. Hon. Members will know of my interest in and concern about Devonport dockyard. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, more or less, "If it's there already, keep it." That is what he meant, although I have stripped the phrase of its elegance. However, I can also use that phrase. We are confident that we have a long-established dockyard which has had a great deal of capital injected into it, and which has, above all, an excellent work force. The work force did not wish to go into private contract management, but they have sustained the change and the shock very well. They have had no industrial strife, and they have given loyally and of their best under the new dispensation.
The dockyard management, Devonport Management Ltd., have produced what I regard as a brilliant exposition of the role that they anticipate for the dockyard now and in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will take due account of that. The dockyard has a great deal to offer, and I have every confidence that, when making his final decision, my hon. Friend will see that for himself.
9.20 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: We have had a long but important debate. I am sorry that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is
1222
not in his place, but nevertheless, I want to thank him for ensuring that some essential documentation was made available to us for the debate.
There was much of interest in the Minister's speech, especially in what he had to say about the Royal Navy's involvement in the Gulf. I shall deal with that in a moment. Supremacy in the sea was soon established and that proved to be a vital element in the war. It is invidious to pick out bits and pieces, but he rightly paid tribute to the super performance of our minehunters.
I am also glad that the Minister took the opportunity to inform us that he has invited tenders for three further type 23 frigates and that tenders are expected by October from shipyards which, wherever they are, would welcome the work that the orders would bring.
The Government's attitude to the future of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid has been raised. I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to comment on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked about HMS Endurance, and I shall comment on that matter later. I give the Minister notice of that so that he can prepare an answer for us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) mentioned naval bases. There are issues that need to be resolved extremely quickly, and the decision should be reported in Parliament but not in the sneaky way used for the decision on Challenger 2. That was announced on Friday morning without any warning to those of us who live in or represent areas where Challenger is manufactured.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who is not in his place, asked whether Labour would maintain a nuclear deterrent. The answer is, emphatically, yes. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is in his place. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that he is recovering. I may be about to misquote him, although I tried to write down carefully what he said, and I hope that I have done so correctly. He said that there was a delicate balance between building the fourth Trident boat and—as he said later when weighing the issue, although I am not clear about this—cancelling the Trident programme altogether. However, if he was referring only to the fourth boat. that is what I shall put on the record for him. He can nod, thus avoiding the necessity for standing.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a strong case for the EH101 helicopter and gave a strong warning, with which I agree, that if an order was not placed quickly, there could be difficulties for the company. He also asked for a defence review, for which the Opposition have been asking for a long time.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made a plea for Portsmouth and Gosport. We expect such pleas from hon. Members for their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made a passionate speech about the sinking of the fishing boat and explained what could be done to prevent such incidents in future. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) talked about the importance of the amphibious force, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan. We want to know the Government's intentions on Fearless and Intrepid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who is not in his place, talked about the contract

1223
for construction of the Trident base. He went into detail about the financial implications, but it is not necessary for me to go into them now.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who also seems to have nipped off, spoke about the reduced threat from the east and said that we must measure the worldwide commitments of the Royal Navy. He also mentioned the type 23 frigates and the possibility of building one on the south coast. It is not my position, especially as my constituency is quite near Newcastle, to determine how and when the contracts are given, or who gets them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in what I thought was a supportive speech, stressed the urgency of the health question, and he especially mentioned the Harvard medical report which said that there was a risk that up to 70,000 children in Iraq might die in the near future.
Mr. Dalyell: Some 170,000.
Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend corrects me; the figure is 170,000.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), in two minutes, mentioned two important points. The first was her disenchantment with "Options for Change". She referred, as hon. Members have done many times, to the heavy hand of the Treasury interfering a bit too much in defence matters.
I put on record my attitude and that of my hon. Friends to the Gulf war. Last week, we saw the march past and the fly past of the forces who had participated in the Gulf war. It was right that the tone was one of gratitude that so many of our soldiers, sailors and airmen had returned safely, and of respect for those who were prepared to lay down their lives.
We must remind ourselves in the post-cold-war world that our military forces may increasingly be called to fight in wars far away which do not directly threaten Britain. That requires even greater courage and commitment from our forces, and those resources should not be squandered. I mention as an aside the quiet and considered words of Prince Charles, and I am sure that everyone thought that he had found exactly the right mood for the occasion.
The Navy's part in the Gulf war is frequently overlooked, but its importance was established long before the war began and continues to this day. The United Nations imposed trade sanctions against Iraq which involved a major naval policing operation in the Persian gulf and in the Red sea. Royal Navy destroyers and frigates were heavily involved in that operation, which was a classic demonstration of the use of naval forces in practical action short of the use of force. It is a sad commentary on the war that we have now returned to a strategy of sanctions as the principal lever on Saddam Hussein.
Another aspect of the Navy's operations in the Gulf has been the continuing effort to clear the many hundreds of sea mines laid by the Iraqis. The benefits of multinational co-operation have been especially apparent here. The long experience of joint mine counter-measures work in the NATO standing naval force channel has paid dividends. Mine-clearing operations in the Gulf may take many more months, so it is important that we remember the personnel
1224
who are still out there clearing up the mess and that we also remember that the Government are set to reward many of those mine counter-measures personnel by closing their base at Rosyth.
Because of the trickiness of the situation, I want to say only a few words about naval base closures. The proposed cuts in naval bases in the United Kingdom are a further example of tragic incompetence on the part of the Government. If our forces are to be cut, clearly some shore bases will close, but the tragedy is that the Government's hostility to planning, and their use of public money to ease painful economic transitions, have prevented them from establishing a clear policy and mechanism for dealing with the effects of base closures.
Several years ago it became obvious that there would be some major changes in international relations, and there was every opportunity for the Government to set up a diversification agency—as the Labour party will, when we gain power in a few months' time. A diversification agency could improve alternative investment opportunities and provide training for workers moving out of declining defence activities. But the Government ploughed on as if nothing was happening, blinded by their faith in the market. I am afraid that it is already too late to cushion the blow for many workers and naval personnel who will be thrown on to the scrap heap by this Government's obsession with market forces.
That blow could not have come at a worse time. Unemployment is again soaring, and in the Rosyth area there is the added problem that private sector manufacturing employment is also heavily dependent on military work, which means that private sector companies are also laying off workers because of defence cuts. Moreover, at Rosyth, Ministers have clearly not been in control of the agenda. Countless leaks have shown that Rosyth was, indeed, the favourite for closure. The remark of the Minister for Defence Procurement that his own local naval base, Devonport, was definitely not intended for closure exacerbated the situation. As I said, I fear that it may now be too late to make any serious efforts to provide alternative work and training opportunities for those made redundant by base closures.
The Prime Minister's competence is at stake here. We have been told in newspaper reports that he has taken command of the Rosyth naval base closure problem since he became fed up with the poor co-ordination between the Navy, the MOD staffs and the Scottish Office. If that is true, and not just a piece of Downing street press office hype, he had better have something to show for it, and soon. We should be told now what is to happen at Rosyth, the Portland training base, Devonport and Portsmouth, to put an end to damaging speculation and leaks.
I have visited Rosyth and Portland. The question that we must ask ourselves about Portland is whether we want a training base for naval ships. If so, there is no-tide, instant access water at Portland and revenue from the ships coming in. I make those remarks about Rosyth and Portland because I have just been to both bases, but that does not mean that I am placing more emphasis on them than on Devonport and Portsmouth. All the bases must be considered equally, on the basis of their special attributes.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North mentioned women at sea, and I should like to respond to his comments. There has been much publicity about the recent court martial of a Wren and a naval officer who had an

1225
affair on HMS Brilliant while it was deployed in the Gulf. The episode has been cited by some as evidence that the Navy's new policy of sending Wrens to sea does not work.
It is important to realise that there are two entirely separate issues at stake here. The first is the question whether having Wrens on combat ships leads to distraction of personnel from their duties and adversely affects the efficient operation of the ship. The second is the effect of any offshore liaison on morale among dependants ashore.
I believe that the first question is a red herring. Many other countries now have mixed crews on their combat vessels, and there is no evidence of degraded operational capabilities. If anything, the presence of women in combat posts at sea improves morale and sharpens commitment. Moreover, even in this era of cuts in force levels, there remains a shortage of skilled personnel in the Navy. One of the simplest and most effective ways of overcoming that shortage is to open the force to women. The Navy would now find it very difficult to get along without Wrens serving at sea in such specialisms as navigation, engineering and the operation of radar and sonar equipment.
The second criticism, which is that the prospect of offshore liaisons adds to the stresses and strains of life for Navy wives, is more difficult to address. Two things can be said about that. First, I am not convinced that the problem is significantly greater in the Navy than in any other service. Where men and women are deployed away from home for lengthy periods, whether on land or at sea, a certain amount of "interaction" is bound to occur. The Navy's problem is that it has taken the lead in placing women in combat posts and has therefore put itself in the spotlight.
I do not want to belittle the problem. The tensions of life at home for those who have spouses at sea for months at a time are immense. Some Navy marriages founder for those reasons. It is therefore vital that the Government learn from the adverse publicity given to the HMS Brilliant affair. They should take the opportunity of "Options for Change" to create much more stability for Navy personnel. Reduced combat readiness and a decline in personnel shortages due in part to the deployment of Wrens at sea should allow the Navy to increase the time spent by sailors at home and to reduce the frequency of posting which may be a major factor in domestic disruption.
There is a second, broader point. In future, as the armed forces becomes smaller and the immediate military threats to Britain subside, it will be more important to ensure that the forces are not isolated from society by the perpetuation of anachronistic traditions and prejudices.
A Navy in which men and women play equally important professional roles is more likely to attract respect and appreciation than one from which half the population are automatically excluded from the most important jobs. The "Newsview" editorial of the July edition of Navy News addresses that problem. It states:
"Yet it remains unlikely whether any of this has altered the entrenched views—whether for or against—expressed when the women-at-sea policy was announced … anyone ever imagined that you could take a group of healthy young men and women and lock them up together for weeks at a time without a few of them succumbing to the temptation to jump into bed with each other."
I want to refer briefly once more to HMS Endurance. I have been on board that vessel, although I have not been
1226
to sea on it when I was in the Falklands. The Falkland islanders think that the vessel is very special. If we had lived in that area and witnessed the arrival of the Argentines after the Endurance had sailed away, we would understand how they felt. They do not want that to happen again. It has long been accepted that the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the south Atlantic in 1982 was a major factor in the Argentine's decision to invade the Falklands.
Another attempt is now being made to scrap HMS Endurance, this time at the behest of the MOD as part of the overall cuts being imposed on the Navy. I hope that the Minister will consider that point most carefully because it is important to many people, and many of us feel strongly about it. Again, Navy News carries an excellent article about HMS Endurance and its role in the south Atlantic. It refers to the significance of the vessel's presence in the area and states that it has—
Mr. Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boyes: I have only a few minutes left, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, I must point out that I did not ask any hon. Member to give way to me this evening.
Mr. Mates: If there is to be a Labour Government, will it be Labour policy to replace HMS Endurance?
Mr. Boyes: Labour has not been in government for a very long time and there are a host of issues that we would have to address, and HMS Endurance would certainly be one of them. I am sure that we would find a role for the vessel in the south Atlantic.
We can justify and be proud of our service men and women who serve this country and who have been prepared to lay down their lives to protect our democracy. We owe them much. If we ask people to go into most dangerous situations, often at short notice, we must ensure that, as a minimum, their weapons systems are as good as any that a potential adversary may possess. We have a duty and an obligation to make that necessary provision for our forces.
9.39 pm
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: It is a great pleasure to re ply to the debate. I shall try to respond to as many points as possible in the time available. I should like first to say something about the people in the Royal Navy.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the custom for a Minister, if he speaks twice in a debate, to ask the leave of the House?
Mr. Carlisle: I beg the House's pardon. With the leave of the House, I will speak again.
I am delighted that hon. Members have praised the people who served in the Gulf so magnificently. I also pay tribute to those who were at home on the support side —for example, in the bases, dockyards, research establishments and elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) reminded us, we must pay respect also to their families. The whole House joins in praise for all those who were involved in any way in the Gulf conflict.
As people are the core of our Navy, we should never forget, even in this age of high technology, how much we owe to the skills and dedication of our people in the Navy.

1227
I am very glad to say that recruitment is generally buoyant, although recruitment targets in future will be lower in order to stay within the manning levels required post-"Options". The high outflow levels experienced in 1990–91 have eased. The challenge that faces us in the period ahead is to improve retention rates among the officers and ratings whom we need and to manage the gradual reduction in overall numbers that is necessary under "Options for Change", without serious disruption either to individuals or to career and branch structures. We intend to do that as carefully and as sensitively as possible.
I should like also to say a word about the Wrens. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) rightly reminded us of that matter. In last year's debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced that members of the Wrens were to serve at sea in surface ships. We can now usefully take stock of how that decision is working out in practice.
Wrens are now being recruited and trained alongside male ratings in almost all branches. The exceptions are submarines and small ship branches, but only because of the difficulties of providing a reasonable level of privacy for both men and women in the restricted accommodation areas in those vessels. We are, however, looking to see what might be done on that in the future. We are also considering the feasibility of women serving in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and in the Royal Marine Corps. As was announced earlier this year, we have already opened employment opportunities for women as naval air crew.
Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Carlisle: No, I shall not give way—I have very little time to answer the points.
Women are serving in 10 major ships, and we are encouraged by the result. As an illustration, I cite a letter which the commanding officer of HMS Brilliant, whose ship was the subject of some quite scurrilous press reports, wrote to The Daily Telegraph. In his letter, Captain Elliott describes a gruelling 17-hour battle undertaken by his mixed crew during service in the Gulf to put out fires in a merchant vessel which had suffered a major engine room and superstructure fire. He describes the scene on board as a burning, blacked-out, flooded and smoke-filled jagged mass of metal, and ended by saying:
"so to all you doubting Thomases—stop doubting. There is no need to. From where I have had the privilege of seeing it during my time in Command, this mixed manning has been a dramatic success and I will stand up and say that to any man with my ship's company right behind me."
Captain Elliott's words provide a necessary corrective to the disproportionate publicity that was given to the one or two isolated problems that occurred.
Many points have been raised in this wide-ranging debate and as I shall be unable to cover them all now, I shall write to those hon. Members whom I do not answer directly. There has been some wide-ranging questioning of "Options for Change". As I said when I opened the debate, "Options" and our framework for the Navy are based on assessment of strategic need and on the threat that we face. The House will remember that, in 1980 and 1981, when we were also facing a squeeze on public expenditure, spending on the armed forces increased because of the threat that we faced. At the present time of difficulties with public
1228
spending, we can contemplate with tranquillity a small decline in our spending on defence because the threat is different. Our strategy and framework depend on the threat.
I am glad that the House generally, including the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, welcomed our order for type 23 destroyers. There will, of course, be a fair competition for the orders for the ships. We hope to get the tenders back by October. We shall look at them carefully and order as we feel fit. I confirm that those orders will be placed.
On the other hand, I am sorry that we do not see any need at present for more orders this year for the Sandown class of minehunter. However, I welcome the praise for the minehunter's performance in the Gulf, and especially that from my hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It is a delight to have my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough back in his place so pertinent, lucid and clear. He is an example to us all. The quality of our minehunters and of the crews who man them is supreme. My hon. Friends were right to say that they rescued minehunters from other countries when they were surrounded by mines in the Gulf. Our quality is unrivalled. We can be truly proud of it.
I have not yet had the time to read the Select Committee's report on submarines, which was produced only today. Obviously, we shall read it with great interest, and reply to it in due course.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) has returned to the debate. I was interested in his comments about collaboration with the French. As he knows, we hope to collaborate with them on the anti-warfare frigate which will replace the type 42 destroyer at the turn of the century. We have already signed a joint collaboration agreement over the local area missile system. Those are two examples of the way in which we are starting to collaborate. I hope that we shall expand those efforts.
A central issue in the debate was submarines. I was glad to be able to announce the studies that will take forward the SSN classes. The studies will last about a year. The Select Committee envisages that we shall be able to meet our commitments if we start building by 1996 or 1997, which is certainly our aim.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) made a clear speech about his constituency and submarines. Our aim is to preserve our skills in building submarines. The fourth Trident will take up some of the slack at the Barrow yard. We envisage that, after the fourth Trident, the new submarines—the development of the Trafalgar class—will retain VSEL's capacity to build submarines. We believe that our ability to build such submarines is of strategic necessity and we intend to preserve that capacity at VSEL. The new SSNs are not second-class submarines—they are the most sensible way to use our existing skills, and on them we can apply the most up-to-date technology, so they will be the best such submarines in the world, if not world beaters.
Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
Mr. Churchill rose—
Mr. Carlisle: No. I am afraid that I do not have time to give way. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me.

1229
Some hon. Members criticised the number of SSKs. These new SSKs are advanced ships, but we believe that four is sufficient at present. It is the first new SSK for 30 years. We decided after careful consideration that we had the right balance between the SSKs and SSNs.
While we are on the subject of submarines, I was challenged about the safety of Polaris. I can confirm to the House that we continue to deploy our nuclear deterrent. Obviously, I cannot discuss operational details but I can confirm to the House that the submarines go to sea only if they are considered safe and we follow carefully the independent advice on safety proffered by the Nuclear Powered Warship Safety Committee.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who explained why he could not be here for the reply to the debate, was anxious about the EH101. Nine prototypes are already built. We are evaluating the tenders for the prime contractorship for the EH101. We certainly hope to make an announcement before the end of July, as the right hon. Gentleman particularly wanted. However, we shall decide on any orders in due course when we consider that the time is right.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was anxious about the submarine movement notification scheme. I can advise her that the extension of the Clyde area submarine movement notification scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epson and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) on 24 June covers the coastal sea areas in which dived submarine operations are most prevalent. I understand that the extension has been warmly welcomed by the Scottish and Clyde fishermens associations. While we have no plans at present for a further extension of the scheme, I can inform the hon. Lady that we are considering the possibility of operating the notification scheme in other waters.
I am also aware of the great interest in fisheries protection. The Royal Navy fisheries protection squadron continues to perform its tasks with great skill. Currently, 15 Royal Naval vessels are deployed in the fisheries protection task and we consult closely with the relevant fisheries department about requirements.
Considerable anxiety was expressed during the debate about the future of the bases. That is understandable. It is generally recognised that a smaller Navy leads to a smaller support area. That is self-evident. Therefore, we are considering the future of all our naval bases and other establishments. I have to advise the House that no decisions have yet been taken. [Interruption.] We shall consider carefully all the arguments before coming to any decisions. I recognise that uncertainty is undesirable and we wish to bring it to an end. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Clackmannan please contain himself?
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) did not have a chance to put in his bid for his naval base at Portland. However, I can advise the House that he constantly badgers me about the excellence of Portland, and we listen to what he says.
There is great concern about HMS Endurance. I can confirm that Endurance has not been decomissioned. She has entered her routine maintenance period in Portsmouth on return from the Antarctic, as normal. As hon. Members will know, Endurance is a relatively old ship, operating in a demanding environment. She will have an extensive structural survey during this maintenance period and deployment this winter will obviously depend on the results of that survey.
1230
The question of amphibiosity is considered to be important by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme. We have reconfirmed our commitment to amphibiosity and it might be encouraging for my hon. Friend to know something which is public knowledge already, though not widely recognised —that we have invited tenders for design studies for replacements of the LPD, the Fearless and the Intrepid. So we are taking the first steps towards replacing those ships.
I restate the Government's commitment to the Royal Navy and our recognition of the central role that it plays in our defence. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have today demonstrated the respect that we have for the Royal Navy, and we saw in the Gulf what it can do when stretched to the limit, with the excellence, courage and skill of the people involved operating their first-rate equipment.
Our commitment for the Royal Navy contrasts starkly with the obscure and grudging muddle which is the defence policy of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) put the Opposition's defence policy more honestly and clearly than most when he called for a cut in spending. He was only putting into words the implied policy of the Labour party—of a cut of £9 billion or one third in the defence budget.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should get rid of the nuclear deterrent. As we know, the Labour party refuses to give a commitment to preserve our deterrent should the Russians or any third world country continue to possess nuclear weapons. Opposition Members fail time and again to come up with any clear decision or statement on that issue. So from our point of view, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish stated true Labour party policy on defence.
Labour, by default, has declared, as I understand it, one-sided nuclear disarmament. By contrast, we are facing the future with an open and sensible defence policy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said in an interesting speech that we must always keep the nuclear deterrent, not only against Russia but against tyrants on the make. We must always meet a changing threat.
The importance that we attach to maintaining strong naval forces is reflected in our investment in new equipment and manpower for the future. I have referred to some of the new equipment and have answered some of the points that were raised in the debate about manpower and equipment. I have not been able to answer various other matters, but 1 shall reply to hon. Members by letter as soon as possible.
The clear message is that with us in office in the coming years, the Royal Navy will continue to play its proud part in meeting our commitments to NATO and further afield and in protecting British interests wherever they need to be protected.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may not be the best person to say this, because I have had more than my share this week and it may not be the best week to say it, but I have a serious point of order. Our proceedings are debate, are they not? In my 29 years in the House I have always understood that the convention, if not the rule, was that the Chair gave precedence to those hon. Members who heard the opening speeches. For whatever good reason, the members of the Select Committee on Defence did not come in to the Chamber

1231
until 7.30 pm. I do not think that it was their fault, because the Government ought to have consulted the Select Committee before choosing a day for this debate. But whatever else, that destroys the idea of a debate—there can be no continuity of the proceedings.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that Mr. Deputy Speaker dealt with this matter, as I think that it was raised at the time. Many factors have to be taken into account. I deeply regret that one hon. Member failed to make his speech. However, it was largely because a number of his colleagues made very long speeches; otherwise, he would have been able to speak. I have already assured him that he will get a prime slot in the Army debate on Monday.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious matter about the conduct of our debate. I know that we are all busy, but it used to be the convention of the House that one at least stayed to hear the following speaker, and that seems to be falling into desuetude. Also, if one spoke, one at least made an attempt to come in to hear the winding-up speeches. I know that the winding-up speeches were nae very good tonight, but if we are to preserve the idea of a debate perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, might have a word with the usual channels, who seem very assiduous about other matters concerning conduct in the House.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to say openly what I do about these matters, but I always note those hon Members who have spoken and who are not here for the winding-up speeches, and I certainly let it be known that that is not part of our conventions. I reiterate what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has said: it is our conviction, although of course the Chair cannot impose conventions, that hon. Members who have spoken in a debate should stay for at least the speech after theirs, if not longer, and should always come in for the winding-up speeches.

Women's Rights
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I am delighted to use this rare and valuable chance for Members of Parliament to raise a topic of their choice to talk about the need to develop women's rights, as a central part of the next Labour Government's agenda for democratic reform.
Equal opportunities for all people, regardless of sex or social class, lie at the heart of the democratic socialist mission. It is a good time to refocus on that task away from the hurly-burly of the political excitement surrounding the collapse in support for the Conservative Government, their splits over Britain's future in the European Community, their poll tax debacle, their economic incompetence and their undermining of our health service.
As time dribbles away, we need to reconsider an issue whose time is about to come. Britain is a backward democracy and nowhere is that underdevelopment so marked, so hurtful and so wasteful as in the failure to allow more than half the population to make their full contribution. Discrimination against women exists almost everywhere in the world, but our social conservatism gives it an added twist, often unknown in north America and Europe.
One of the clear differences between the Conservative and Labour parties is that Labour recognises that failure and we will tackle it. Previous Labour Governments passed into law the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970—firm foundations which have not been built upon in the past 12 years. I shall shortly outline some of our concise sets of proposals which we shall bring forward as soon as the Conservative Prime Minister finds the decisiveness to call an election.
A legislative war of attrition against discrimination, while essential, is only part of what is required. Every individual—woman and man—must know his or her rights if they are to exercise them. If we have rights at all, let us write them down for all to see, from their schooldays onwards. A Bill of Rights within a written constitution is the indispensable backcloth against which individuals will come to understand their rights, argue for them, and consolidate hard-won progress beyond legislative whim.
Such a democratic backcloth would also open up the democratic process beyond the narrow confines of executive action, and allow a multitude of individuals and organisations to play a part in developing rights rather than wait for laws to be handed down. In fighting sex discrimination, many channels must be used, and our Labour Government must not restrict themselves to a one-club policy—a gentlemen's club policy at that.
The traditionally minded will say that that would give power to the judges, as if they do not have power already. Ask those women who have been involved in equal value for equal work cases about judicial interpretation. And as if a Labour Government, serious about democratic reform, would not put a class-based, unrepresentative, and misogynistic judiciary first on their list. The law that has so failed to protect women over the past decade, and which has underwritten the Government's values, demands attention—Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights.

1233
A radically updated judiciary and a Bill of Rights would merely facilitate and serve as the stage for those battles. They would not in themselves guarantee outcomes that supporters of a woman's right to choose know only too well must be fought and won over and over again, without end.
The second institutional strand that is vital if we are to build on progress in women's rights is a Ministry for women, under its future Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). Before Conservative Members grow too frightened, I may point out that such a Ministry is common in many European countries and elsewhere.
The seriousness with which that Ministry is staffed, funded and given access to programmes, Departments and Cabinet committees will be the litmus test of Labour's practical commitment to women's rights. It will not be speeches that deliver fair job opportunities, adequate child care, and decent quotas, but mundane chasing through, quality of service reports, implementation targeting and swift administrative sanctions against obstructions and obstructors.
For women to have improved status and power in our society, the attitudes of many men and women must change. Such a change can only benefit from the knowledge and assertion of the rights of an individual—and, just as important, from the knowledge and assertion of the individual rights of others. Even with a Bill of Rights, such a mutual education process between men and women would take a generation. When it is commonplace at meetings for British men to allow women to finish their points without interrupting, that will truly be a landmark.
Meanwhile, much work remains to be done—particularly in the sphere of economic rights. That task will be set about with relish by all the Departments of a Labour Government, with the Ministry for women in the lead. Despite existing equal pay and anti-sex discrimination legislation, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and European Community rulings, women at work are still not treated equally when they apply for a job, seek promotion or look for fair pay. Each equal value case, for example, must be fought from scratch—rather than serve as a precedent for behaviour and fairness that should be applicable to all employers. Such cases can take up to four years to complete. That is totally unacceptable, and it will be tackled as part of a sex equality Bill.
There are many other examples of unfairness that are visited upon the powerless at work, often women, by the powerful, usually men. I noted today's announcement by the Leader of the House in respect of the hours that the House sits. That can only be good for those parties and individuals trying to get more women into positions of power. I am grateful to see that the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) is nodding, however slightly. I hope that she also welcomes today's announcement.
It is just as important that we make efforts to ensure that public figures are given assistance, and certainly women should be helped in every possible respect in politics, not least in the timing of meetings and the provision of child care so that they can make their contribution to local councils and elsewhere. The same argument applies in public service. It is shameful that only 3 per cent. of senior civil servants are women, when many of the industrial grades comprise 40, 50 and sometimes 60 per cent. women.
1234
The job segregation that begins at school with the choice of subject often ends with too many girls in low-tech, low-paid jobs and women being over-concentrated in poorly paid sectors. That is why low pay will demand the immediate attention of a Labour Government. It is about time that the case for a national minimum wage was given as much media time as the propaganda against it. I am sure that the packed Press Gallery will take that issue in hand and rectify the balance immediately.
Millions of men will benefit from a national minimum wage, but 78 per cent. of those who will gain from it will be women—nearly half of all gainers will be part-time women workers. The scare stories that were used about the Equal Pay Act 1970 are now being recycled against the minimum wage. It must be understood that low pay is always accompanied by poor or no training, a high labour turnover and low investment. We are all taxed to subsidise bad employers through family credit payments to their low-paid employees. Our European competitors would not dream of being without basic pay standards. A Conservative Government who would condone pay of less than £3·40 an hour deserve the condemnation of all women and men at work. Once again, the early implementation of a national minimum wage will be a credibility test for a Labour Government.
A Labour Government prepared to tackle low pay would equally swiftly improve child care, the provision of workplace creches, community care, training and education, ensure equal pay, and provide bridges between benefits and work, to free women to take up job opportunities. Maternity rights in the United Kingdom lag shamefully behind those of our European neighbours. We are like some third-rate banana republic, and it is only in Britain that women have to work two years for the same employer to be allowed maternity rights. Our paid maternity leave arrangements are the worst in Europe. Only half working pregnant mothers have the right to have their jobs back. It is a national humiliation that we have to be dragged up to European standards by European Community directives that, in turn, the Conservative Government are now blocking.
Time does not permit me to give at length the European comparisons on parental leave, part-time workers, maternity rights and other spheres in which the British working mother is always the poor relation. However, the evidence is there and it is strong enough to convert the most ardent member of the Bruges group into a federalist, because our conditions are so appalling and our position in the league table is so consistently near the bottom.
It will fall to a Labour Government to ensure that, once in work, the same rights and pay apply to full timers, part timers, temporary subcontractors or home workers. Paid maternity leave and the right to return to a job must sit alongside truly independent taxation for women and the prospect of a flexible decade of retirement for those who want it. The Labour party has the comprehensive package of measures necessary to promote and support the fundamental change in social and interpersonal attitudes that will ensure that the very idea of women's rights being distinct from human rights will grow ever more irrelevant.
10.14 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this debate on women's rights. It takes place on the day when the first part of the Conservative party's women's conference is being held. The streets of London are thronged with Conservative women from all over the country and they are gathering at one of our national conference centres to hear about Conservative policies. No doubt they will also hear about my response to the hon. Gentleman's proposals for a Bill of Rights for women.
The aspirations of the Labour and Conservative parties about putting right inequalities and lack of opportunities for women are not far apart. The Conservative party attaches great importance to the role and status of women in our society. We are committed to the principle of equal opportunities and to removing barriers that prevent women from playing their full role in public and private life, in employment and in the role that many women choose to play, at least for part of their lives—that of bringing up the next generation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not imply that members of his party do not attach enormous importance to that role. I should be surprised if he did.
Mr. Allen: We attach so much importance to the role of bringing up children that we think that the father should share the duties.
Mrs. Rumbold: I share that belief, and many young men share with their wives the joys and tribulations of bringing up children.
When speaking about women's rights we would not use the same strident terms as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, but we certainly encourage flexibility and choice and we seek to set an example through practice. We establish standards through legislation and we promote good ideas and co-operation between Government, local authorities, employers, voluntary organisations and others.
The hon. Gentleman said that a Labour Government would establish a Ministry for women. The Government have already established a ministerial group to look at women's issues. I have the honour to chair that group and I was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We undertake to ensure that throughout Ministeries the issues that are most important to women are dealt with fairly and looked at objectively and we try to ensure an input before policies are set in legislation.
I am on record, and I shall be on record again tomorrow when I make a speech elsewhere, as saying that I am deeply concerned about the notion of a separate Ministry for women. Such a Ministry would be an organ within Whitehall and would have to discharge its responsibilities though other Ministries. Experience in Whitehall has taught me that each empire likes to draw tight boundaries. The idea of a Ministry for women that would be able to encroach on Whitehall bureaucracy without fear or favour is not feasible.
Mr. Allen: I am tempted to ask the Minister to give some examples of the difficulties that she has encountered in penetrating other Ministries in her capacity as chair of the ministerial group. I shall leave that as it might be unfair
1236
to do so. Does she believe that it would be useful to have the teeth of a separate Ministry in pursuing even the aims of the Conservative party on women's rights?
Mrs. Rumbold: The ministerial group has sufficient teeth and has shown what achievements can be made. I have no doubt that we shall achieve more under a Conservative Government.
The hon. Gentleman spoke briefly about equal opportunities. The Government have consistently supported the Equal Opportunities Commission and have demonstrated our commitment to its work. The extent of the commission's work is impressive. It publicises the good things that happen to women and highlights some of the difficulties that they encounter, such as securing equal employment opportunities. The commission is working exceedingly well in discharging its responsibility to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity between men and women. As an independent body, it should be able to scrutinise the actions of Government, and sometimes it has had no hesitation in rightfully criticising our actions. It has a fine record, and I doubt whether any subsequent Government will better its achievements.
The hon. Gentleman briefly mentioned the education opportunities and aspirations that he would like to see for women. I share those education aspirations. The Government introduced the national curriculum and set in train equality of opportunity to enable girls to grow up through the education system and to study the same subjects as boys. Tomorrow's women will have had the opportunity to learn technology, science and mathematics, which formerly were not regarded as girls' subjects but are now part of the education system.
This year's results have demonstrated the success of those policies in the past 10 years. For the first time, more girls are applying for university places than boys. We can be justly proud of that tremendous record.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that the introduction of the minimum wage will liberate women. I ask him to think about what is happening in the labour force, because 91 per cent of part-time workers are women. They choose to work part time because it better enables them to combine that work with the work that they readily wish to undertake in the home looking after their young and growing children. If a minimum wage were introduced, employers may not be able to employ as many people as they do now.
Britain has many women in its work force—many more than in the European countries that the hon. Gentleman cited with such glee as in a better position than us. Forty-four per cent. of the United Kingdom's labour force are women, and they have never been in a more powerful position to ensure that their needs and wishes are taken into account. That is an exceedingly good record and is better than that of any comparable European nations. The notion that we would introduce a minimum wage and undermine that position would frighten not only me but armies of women who would think, "Just a minute. That means that, with a Labour Government, our jobs will go at a stroke". The hon. Gentleman should think about that.
Mr. Allen: The right hon. Lady should not believe too much of the propaganda from the Secretary of State for Employment. Those fears were shown to be totally unfounded in north America and most European

1237
countries. I ask the right hon. Lady to consider not merely the fears that have been wrongly raised in the propaganda battle over a national minimum wage but the opportunities that a minimum wage may provide, particularly for women on benefits, who feel that it is hardly worth their while leaving home for a job that they would like. So often, the wage paid for such a job is appallingly low. With a national minimum wage, we might encourage more people to go into work and end the stories that are occasionally told about a fictitious number of available jobs.
Mrs. Rumbold: A substantial proportion of our work force are women. There would not necessarily be many employers who could sustain their business—which is to achieve profits—and continue to employ women in the way that they are now employed without being concerned about the number of jobs that they could offer women.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the differentials for women who wish to go to work rather than remain on benefit. A number of women make the courageous and proper decision. They wish to show their children that they can work and maintain them, rather than live on the state. I would work to achieve that objective. It is important that the next generation can see that a member of the family supports the family through her own efforts rather than by living off the state.
I wish to comment on the importance of involving women in key aspects of public life. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not consider that matter in depth. Recently, my party carried out an interesting exercise into the changes in the achievements of women over the past 12 years. There have been dramatic increases in the number of women succeeding all the way through the professions. There have been dramatic improvements in the number of
1238
women in financial services—work in which they were not involved in the past—and in the number of women in higher education who are successfully pursuing different careers and qualifications. Those improvements will continue. There have also been increasing numbers of women in top public appointments and in the major professions.
Slowly but surely, we are winning the battle, without the underpinning of a Bill of Rights and a bureaucratic structure. Such a structure would not be particularly welcomed by women. Under a Labour Government and the structures and bureaucracy envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, women may feel that they are constrained to put themselves into the straitjacket of having to work rather than make clear choices themselves and take the opportunity to bring up their children and to compete at their own pace and level. The Conservative party and the Conservative Government have never pushed people around. The success of women in public life and throughout society during the past 13 years has been dramatic.
The United Kingdom has a very good record on maternity rights. It allows one of the longest periods of maternity absence—40 weeks—in the European Community and one of the longest periods—18 weeks—of paid absence. We already allow women not to be unreasonably refused time off for ante-natal care. We have thus ensured that women can pursue a career and raise a family while not worrying unduly about their jobs when they may feel especially vulnerable.
I refute the hon. Gentleman's claim that a Bill of Rights is the way forward for women. The women of this country are doing very well indeed without a Bill of Rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance indicators are published for his Department; and what steps his Department has taken to involve consumer views in the development of performance indicators.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my Department's annual report 1991—Cm. 1508—which provides an explanation of my Department's expenditure plans, including measures of past and expected outputs and performance. Further details are also available from MINIS documents in the Library of the House; the latest MINIS returns—MINIS 12—will be published shortly.

  Last year 27,900 people and organisations were interviewed or consulted at a cost of £2·3 million in pursuit of the Department finding out more about the effects of its policies and programmes. Each year my Department publishes the results of its findings and distributes the reports widely. The Department also encourages its sponsored bodies and local authorities to take account of the views of consumers and other interested parties in developing performance indicators for the services which are delivered through them, rather than by the Department directly. For example, we have recently commissioned the development of a manual for local authorities and housing associations on conducting tenant surveys.

  Chromium Compounds
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the dangers to public health of airborne emissions of chromium compounds; and what measures are taken to monitor industrial sites which are known to emit such substances.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on dangers to public health of airborne emissions of chromium compounds is a matter primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  New processes for the production of chromium, its alloys and compounds require an authorisation from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, under part I of the Environmental Protection Act. The authorisation will include monitoring requirements of the operator to demonstrate compliance with the release limits commensurate with the use of the "best available techniques not entailing excessive cost".

  However, existing chromium works subject to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act are required to demonstrate the use of the "best practical means" and this may include the specific requirement to monitor emissions of chromium and its compounds. These works will come under the requirements of part I of the Environmental Protection Act from I May 1994.

  Clyde Submarine Base
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many supervising officers' instructions at the Trident construction project at the Clyde submarine base have been issued at nil value; and what percentage of instructions on average come into this category;

  (2) what budgetary value is attributed to supervising officers' instructions to contractors and sub-contractors relating to work at the Clyde submarine base.

  Mr. Yeo
  Our contractual arrangements at the Clyde submarine base development are commercially confidenial.

  Planning Appeals
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to the statement of 2 May,Official Report, columns 273–74 by the Minister for Housing and Planning, if he will give the success rate of planning appeals in England divided into small sites of two acres or less not involving conservation areas or listed buildings, larger sites of the same type, proposals in conservation areas, proposals involving listed buildings not in conservation areas and appeals against enforcement notices.

  Sir George Young
  The information relating to appeals against enforcement notices is as follows:

  Number

  Per cent

  Appeals decided

  2,808

  —

  Notice upheld

  1,873

  67

  Notice varied

  81

  3

  Notice quashed

  854

  30

  The other information requested is not available in the form required.

  Concert Hall, Manchester
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what public funding has been put towards the financing of the proposed international concert hall, Manchester.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public funding put towards the financing of the proposed international concert hall, Manchester, has amounted to £311,500 to date for a number of feasibility studies.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require all contracts which involve the importation of waste into the United Kingdom to include a clause which will require the waste to be returned to the exporter if it is found to be different in nature, content or toxicity from that described in the contract.

  Mr. Trippier
  One provision of the Basle convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal is that, where the fault lies with him, the exporter or generator must take back his waste where it does not conform in a material way with the documents including the contract. The European
  517
  Community has considerable competence in respect of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and the United Kingdom is pressing the EC to adopt a regulation to implement the convention. The regulation will necessarily include provision for the return of waste in the circumstances described.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of money saved in community charge reduction scheme payments due to the £140 reduction in headline bills; what is the likely cost of the reduction scheme in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The cost of the reduction scheme announced in January was £1·7 billion. Following the Budget changes, my best estimate of the cost of the reduction scheme is £1·25 billion.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to publish regulations relating to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill on either(a) capping or (b) valuation before the end of July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We intend to publish as soon as practicable regulations to enable us to make an early start on the exercise of allocating domestic properties into bands.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid in 1990–91 in poll tax transitional relief.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local authorities have not yet submitted final claims for grant in respect of transitional relief awarded, but to date they have claimed £260 million.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the administrative costs of administering(a) poll tax transitional relief in 1990–91 and (b) the community charge reduction scheme in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  A total of £19 million was paid to local authorities last year to reimburse them for the cost of operating the transitional relief scheme. This year local authorities will receive a further £15 million to cover the costs of preparing for and administering the reduction scheme.

  Pollution Insurance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's environment directorate on pollution insurance and compensation funds for accidental pollution in regard to its relevance for United Kingdom legislation.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have made no response to the publication of the report. It will of course be studied by officials and any material relevant to United Kingdom legislation will be noted.

  National Association for Environmental Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings he has had with representatives of the National Association for Environmental Education since 1987; and when he next expects to meet representatives of the association.

  Mr. Trippier
  There have been no recent meetings between Ministers and the National Association for Environmental Education although officials maintain regular contact. I am planning to attend the association's annual conference in April next year.

  EC Construction Products Directive
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to implement the provisions of the EC construction products directive in the United Kingdom.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend intends to implement the EC construction products directive — 89/106/EEC—by means of regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. These regulations are to be laid in Parliament around the middle of July and it is proposed that they come into force around the turn of the year.

  Implementation of the directive in the United Kingdom will take place somewhat later than the target timetable set out in the directive—27 June 1991. However, our implementation timetable is entirely consistent with the European Commission's projected date for the publication of interpretative documents. These documents are essential to the commercial application of the directive and to effective enforcement action.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress was made by the parties to the Montreal protocol at their third meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The third meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer took place in Nairobi from 19 to 21 June. Good progress was made in setting stronger mandates for the protocol's technological and economic assessment panels to consider the implications for a 1997 phase-out of substances that deplete the ozone layer, and to review the control measures agreed at the London meeting in 1990.

  The United Kingdom will play a leading role in the work of the working groups set up under the Montreal protocol to examine and recommend further changes to the protocol when it is reviewed next year at the fourth meeting of the parties.

  More than 70 countries are now parties to the protocol. The meeting welcomed the announcement from China that it would accede to the protocol. The parties also agreed to increase the size of the interim multilateral fund established one year ago at the London meeting to $200 million, and approved over $9 million of projects to be undertaken in 1991 by the World bank, United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Development Programme to support developing countries to phase out their use of ozone-depleting substances.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will put into private ownership the Fenchurch Street to Southend line; if he will allow competing operators to run trains for passengers on the line; and if he will allow season ticket holders to buy shares in the lines;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to privatise designated British Rail lines on an experimental basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our policy is to privatise British Rail. We are considering how that can best be done. We propose to provide for a right of access to British Rail's track for new operators, although this will require legislation.

  Bus Drivers
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute an inquiry into the hours worked by drivers employed by private bus companies in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The hours worked by bus drivers in the Greater London area, as elsewhere, are governed by rules contained in part VI of the Transport Act 1968 and EC directive 3820/85.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will construct a table showing, for each police authority, what the total accumulated bid was for increases in establishment between 1979 and the latest available date; what total increases in establishment have been awarded in each case; and what percentage the total increases represent as a proportion of the total accumulated bids.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table for police authorities in England and Wales shows what has been approved since 1979.

  Accumulated bids

  Increases

  Percentage increases

  Avon and Somerset

  465

  231

  49·7

  Bedfordshire

  303

  169

  55·8

  Cambridgeshire

  232

  135

  58·2

  Cheshire

  235

  94

  40·0

  Cleveland

  89

  91

  102·2

  Cumbria

  654

  95

  14·5

  Derbyshire

  387

  111

  28·7

  Devon and Cornwall

  386

  205

  53·1

  Dorset

  299

  122

  40·8

  Durham

  54

  37

  68·5

  Dyfed Powys

  9

  9

  100·0

  Essex

  891

  365

  41·0

  Gloucestershire

  105

  67

  63·8

  Greater Manchester

  1,684

  306

  18·2

  Gwent

  115

  34

  29·6

  Hampshire

  441

  246

  55·8

  Hertfordshire

  296

  147

  49·7

  Humberside

  232

  86

  37·1

  Kent

  454

  226

  49·8

  Lancashire

  341

  105

  30·8

  Leicestershire

  327

  120

  36·7

  520

  Accumulated bids

  Increases

  Percentage increases

  Lincolnshire

  43

  23

  53·5

  Merseyside

  464

  255

  55·0

  Norfolk

  300

  155

  51·7

  Northamptonshire

  315

  210

  66·7

  Northumbria

  835

  253

  30·3

  North Wales

  161

  72

  44·7

  North Yorkshire

  210

  86

  41·0

  Nottinghamshire

  401

  199

  49·6

  South Wales

  316

  99

  31·3

  South Yorkshire

  773

  264

  34·2

  Staffordshire

  389

  144

  37·0

  Suffolk

  171

  127

  74·3

  Surrey

  469

  71

  15·1

  Sussex

  361

  179

  49·6

  Thames Valley

  1,840

  728

  39·6

  Warwickshire

  421

  139

  33·0

  West Mercia

  382

  189

  49·5

  West Midlands

  1,452

  432

  29·8

  West Yorkshire

  969

  189

  19·5

  Wiltshire

  213

  91

  42·7

  City of London1

  12

  (-224)

  —

  Metropolitan2

  —

  2,126

  —

  1 The establishment of the City of London Police was reduced in 1983–84 and therefore a percentage of posts approved from posts applied for cannot be shown.

  2 The Home Secretary is himself police authority for the Metropolitan Police. The table shows therefore only the extra posts awarded.

  Chief Superintendent Colin McMurray
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the original terms of the disciplinary inquiry into the alleged activities of Chief Superintendent Colin McMurray.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Police (Accusations)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what channels exist for senior police officers to vindicate themselves following false accusations being brought against them.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Where a senior officer has been the subject of a false allegation by a member of the public, it is open to him, as it is to anyone else, to bring a civil action against that person.

  Braille Voting Cards
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide Braille voting cards at polling stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. The Representation of the People Acts and subordinate legislation already allow the presiding officer or a companion to assist blind people to vote. Alternatively, they may choose to vote by post or by proxy.

  Police Officers (Call-out)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information is available to him on the numbers of police officers available for call-out for each police force; what is the figure for each force during(a) daytime and (b) night time; and what proportion of the total force strength this represents;
  521
  (2) what information is available to his Department on the call-out response times by individual police forces; if he will give the average figure for (a) daytime and (b) night time, together with the 10 highest and 10 lowest figures; and what are the comparable figures for call-out to business and retail premises (i) in the high street and (ii) in out-of-town shopping centres.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not held centrally.

  TV Licensing Enforcement
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sanctions are available to him to ensure that details of television purchases provided to the BBC for licensing enforcement are not used for commercial purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under section 180 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, responsibility for the issue and renewal of television licences passed to the BBC on 1 April 1991. The right to use the records existing before 1 April for television licensing purposes was transferred to the corporation by deed of gift laid before the House on 8 March. Its use of those records for any other purposes would need my prior approval. However, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984, it is for the BBC to decide what use to make of the records created since it became the statutory licensing authority.

  Swear Belts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ban the sale of swear belts to minors.

  Mr. John Patten
  Legislation on the supply, display, importation or use of obscene or indecent material may apply to tape devices which replay foul language. The law should operate on the language used rather than the instruments for reproducing it. As well as the criminal law, we need the exercise of responsibility by parents and families in influencing minors.

  Mr. Samuel Antonelli
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the activities of Samuel Thomas Antonelli, a United States citizen convicted on four counts of harassment at Warrington magistrates court on 5 March; and what steps he intends to take in the matter.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 25 June 1991]: None, although I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received a number of representations about Mr. Antonelli and his company. Mr. Antonelli has appealed to the Crown court against his conviction, and I can make no comment about those proceedings.

  Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the current position concerning police inquiries into the affairs of Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 25 June 1991]: I understand that the investigation by the Metropolitan
  522
  police into the affairs of Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi is continuing. Charges of conspiracy to defraud have now been brought against Mr. Bedi.

WALES

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the source of the information he gave in his answer to the hon. Member for Ynys Mōn (Mr. Jones) of 7 June,Official Report, column 369, regarding outstanding right-to-buy applications.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information came from a Welsh Office statistical return (WHO7) which is completed by each local authority on a quarterly basis. The return asks, among other things, for the number of"accepted Right-to-Buy applications being dealt with but not yet completed at end of quarter".
  The data from this part of the return formed the basis of my recent answer.

  The return, together with other housing statistical returns, was reviewed in consultation with local authority representatives last year.

  Youth Training
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many youth training scheme places have been made available in Wales in the area of agricultural and rural skills training during each of the last 10 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There were 730 YT places in agricultural skills filled at 30 March 1991. Information relating to earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many youth opportunities programme, youth training scheme and youth training places were available in Wales in each year since 1978; and what is the estimate for 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available.

  EC Funding
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are currently being made by his Department to ensure the maximum possible level of funding from the European Community structures directives to objective 5b status areas of Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The integrated development operations programme—IDO—for Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys, under objective 5b of the EC's structural funds, was formally approved by the Commission on 14 May this year. The European regional development fund—ERDF —element of the IDO was already operating as a national programme of community interest, and some £67·4 million in ERDF grants has been allocated to projects in the three counties, out of a programme allocation of £79·3 million for 1987–91. Approval to the IDO means that European social fund projects can also be supported, and the allocation of £1·8 million for 1990 has already been committed to projects. A further IDO programme for
  523
  1992–93. to take up funds already committed to Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys, will shortly be submitted to the Commission.

  Planning Procedures
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the success rate of planning appeals in Wales, overall and divided into: small sites of two acres or less not involving conservation areas or listed buildings, larger sites of the same type, proposals in conservation areas, proposals involving listed buildings not in conservation areas and appeals against enforcement notices.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In Wales 33·8 per cent. of planning appeals were allowed in the financial year 1990–91. In the same period 31 per cent. of appeals against enforcement notices were allowed. Information is not kept in such a way as to provide the other figures requested.

  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the results of his review on planning guidance in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Assembly of Welsh Counties —AWC—has accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to assess, in collaboration with other bodies, the existing strategic planning framework which provides the policy context for the preparation of structure plans and local plans in Wales. We expect to receive advice from the AWC early in 1992. We will then consider the need to revise or update the policy framework.

  Sheep (Attacks by Dogs)
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of attacks on sheep by dogs have been recorded in each police authority area in Wales in each of the last five years; and how many sheep have been (i) killed or (ii) injured in each instance.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Agricultural Tenancies
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many agricultural tenancies have been granted to people under the age of 30 years in Wales in each year since 1978; and what has been the ratio of applications to available lettings in each instance.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the uniform business rate on businesses in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Unified business rates remove uncertainty in financial planning for businesses by limiting year-on-year increases to no more than the retail prices index, equalise rates on similar properties in different locations, and avoid unreasonable levels of rates imposed by some local authorities under the old system.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Advisers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many members of the Cabinet have a special adviser.

  The Prime Minister
  Seventeen.

  Medicinal Products
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are made to provide the Department of Trade and Industry with briefing from the Department of Health on the issue of supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products.

  The Prime Minister
  There is close co-operation and regular contact between the two Departments, to ensure that health care, industrial and intellectual property issues are reflected in the Government's approach to the Commission's proposal.

  Farmed Salmon
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministry is responsible for negotiating with the European Commission concerning the dumping of farmed salmon.

  The Prime Minister
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department are together representing the current concerns of the United Kingdom's fish farming industry with Norwegian imports to the European Commission. In the event of a formal anti-dumping complaint being made by the industry, the Department of Trade and Industry working in close co-operation with other relevant Departments would represent the United Kingdom interest in Brussels in view of its overall responsibility for anti-dumping matters.

  Strategic Arms Reduction
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the inclusion of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent in strategic arms reduction talks with the Soviet Union.

  The Prime Minister
  The current strategic arms reduction talks are bilateral between the United States and the Soviet Union; British nuclear forces will not therefore be included in the agreement. If United States and Soviet strategic arsenals were further reduced substantially, and if there had been no significant improvements in defensive capabilities, we would consider how best we might contribute to the arms control process in the light of the changed circumstances. But the introduction of Trident in the mid-1990s will provide the minimum capability necessary to maintain an effective independent deterrent into the next century and the reductions in prospect would not reduce our strategic needs.

  Indonesian Research Minister
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Indonesian Research Minister on 19 June.

  The Prime Minister
  I met Dr. Habibie, the Indonesian Minister for Research and Technology, on 19 June. We
  525
  discussed a number of issues including commercial co-operation, particularly in the aerospace sector, and the arrangements for Indonesians to study in Britain.

  European Council
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he expects to put to the meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall make clear the United Kingdom objective of creating an open, liberal and efficient Community. We want to improve foreign policy co-ordination, but the basis of our security in Europe must continue to be the Atlantic alliance. In order to allow European co-operation to prosper, we need a flexible treaty structure distinguishing between Community and intergovernmental activity. We also want the European Council to give fresh impetus to the single market programme. We shall discuss a range of international issues, including the crisis in Yugoslavia.

  President Mitterrand
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed during his meeting with President Mitterrand on 24 June.

  The Prime Minister
  The talks at the annual Anglo-French summit in Dunkirk on 24 June concentrated on the two intergovernmental conferences and the forthcoming Luxembourg European Council; European security and defence questions; and the situation in Iraq. The talks were fruitful and timely. President Mitterrand and I agreed to meet again on 29 July in Calais on the fourth anniversary of the ratification of the channel tunnel treaty.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall depart for Luxembourg for the European Council meeting tomorrow.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the total number of persons employed as(a) teachers, (b) skilled ancillary staff and (c) unskilled or semi-skilled staff in (i) controlled schools, (ii) schools under the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and (iii) other maintained schools, indicating in respect of each figure the number of persons whose perceived religious affiliation is Protestant and Roman Catholic.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Housing, Dungannon and Fermanagh
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many private sector new-build planning permissions have been(a) approved and (b) refused in each year since 1986 in rural areas within (i) Dungannon and (ii) Fermanagh district council area.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Approved

  Refused

  Dungannon

  Fermanagh

  Dungannon

  Fermanagh

  1985–86

  137

  235

  22

  11

  1986–87

  177

  235

  29

  32

  1987–88

  165

  230

  30

  37

  1988–89

  167

  224

  28

  28

  1989–90

  145

  215

  25

  33

  1990–91

  131

  219

  41

  38

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the(a) percentage and (b) number of unfit houses in private ownership in the rural areas of (i) Dungannon and (ii) Fermanagh district council areas according to Northern Ireland Housing Executive statistics.

  Mr. Needham
  The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised me that the information requested is not available separately for the Dungannon and Fermanagh district council areas. However the executive's 1987 house condition survey indicated that, taking these two areas together, some 27 per cent. —4,340—privately owned dwellings were unfit.

  Farming
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people earn their living entirely from farming in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone; and if he will indicate the trend since 1972 and projected likely trends till the year 2000.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not available. Information from the June 1990 farm census indicates that 10,300 persons in the constituency worked on farms, either as farmers, family or hired labour. Of this number 5,000 indicated that they worked full time in agriculture. Comparable data are not available for earlier years.

  Human Rights Report
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received the 16th report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The report, for the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991, has been published today and copies have been laid before Parliament.

  The report covers a wide range of matters that the commission has considered during the period under review. These include emergency legislation, education, fair employment, the law relating to children, peremptory challenge in the selection of jurors, silence as corroboration and prisoners' rights.

  I value the advice the commission gives me and appreciate the work it does in considering a wide range of human rights matters. The commission has undertaken another extensive programme of work and I am grateful for the continued commitment shown by its members.
  527
  Copies of my response to the commission's 16th report and of the report itself have been placed in the Library.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of(a) policemen, (b) prison officers, (c) regular Army soldiers and (d) the Ulster Defence

  Prisoners released on licence from indeterminate sentences imposed for murder of members of the Security Forces and the Northern Ireland Prison Service

  Number released by years served

  Year

  Victim

  7

  9

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  Total released

  1981–84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nil

  1985

  Army

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Ruc

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1986

  Army

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  RUC

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1987

  Army

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  UDR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1988

  Army

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  7

  1989

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  5

  UDR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1990

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  4

  RUC

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  7

  UDR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  1991 (to

  NIPS1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  26 June)

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  TOTAL

  3

  3

  3

  3

  7

  8

  10

  7

  6

  1

  51

  1 Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  Note: These figures include prisoners sentenced to detention during the pleasure of the Secretary of State.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 21 and 22 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to the reply, 3 June 1991, c. 38]: I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.

  Agreement was reached in principle on instruments concerning health rules for the marketing of molluscs and of fishery products, veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries, health conditions for trade in poultrymeat and safety standards for the use of pesticides on plants. In addition significant progress was made on a draft regulation on health rules for the marketing of fresh meat. All these constitute useful and significant steps towards the establishment of the single market.

  The Council had a first discussion of two proposals on food quality. I made it clear that the United Kingdom had serious doubts as to the usefulness of these proposals; and that major changes would be needed if they were to secure our support.
  528
  Regiment have been released on licence in each of the last 10 years, indicating, in each case, the number of years actually served in prison.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 June 1991]: The information is as follows:

  I made it clear that the United Kingdom expected satisfactory arrangements to be introduced to protect Community (notably Scottish) producers of soft fruit from exceptionally low-priced imports from eastern Europe when the present special controls expire on 31 July.

ENERGY

  Fissile Material
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State far Energy if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the International Atomic Energy Authority with respect to monitoring the use made in civil nuclear programmes of fissile materials produced originally for military purposes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom, whatever its origin, is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the IAEA-UKE-uratom safeguards agreement—INFCIRC-263.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether fissile material produced for military purposes in the United Kingdom is suitable for civil purposes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Yes, in principle.

  Plutonium Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much plutonium has been exported to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic in each of the past two years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There have been no exports of plutonium in quantities of a few grammes or more to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic from the United Kingdom during the past two years.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Chittagong Hill Tracts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been granted to refugees from the Chittagong hill tracts who have sought sanctuary in Tripura, India; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No request for United Kingdom bilateral assistance has been received from either of the Governments concerned. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been unable to gain access and is also therefore unable to assist.

  Project Costs
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing the average agreed ceiling for local cost aid, and the percentage of bilateral aid actually given for local costs, as a percentage of project aid and a percentage of total bilateral aid, in Africa and Asia, in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 19 June 1991]: Since 1990 there have no longer been any limits on the extent to which our financial aid to least-developed countries can be used to meet local costs. For other countries, local cost ceilings are established on a country or project basis; data on the level of these ceilings are not available in an aggregated form. The percentage figures for actual local cost aid are as follows:

  Africa

  Asia

  Local costs as Percentage of Project aid (excluding ATP)

  Local costs as Percentage of total bilateral aid

  Local costs as Percentage of Project aid (excluding ATP)

  Local costs as Percentage of total bilateral aid

  1981

  28

  7

  20

  14

  1982

  27

  8

  37

  20

  1983

  26

  7

  41

  26

  1984

  27

  7

  42

  20

  1985

  18

  4

  46

  21

  1986

  24

  8

  22

  11

  1987

  19

  2

  21

  9

  1988

  9

  1

  33

  9

  1989

  11

  1

  25

  8

  19901

  13

  2

  25

  6

  1 Provisional.

  Note: Local costs figures are not available by region before 1981.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a further breakdown of the figures given in the answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 350, to differentiate between claimants in residential and in nursing homes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimate of the number of people in receipt of income support in residential care and nursing homes is for August 1990, when the figure was 128,000 and 71,000 respectively. Information on how many of these were over pension age is not available, but, as of May 1989, about 73 per cent. of income support recipients in residential care and 88 per cent. in nursing homes were over pension age.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the practice of his Department's offices and agencies of referring clients to local citizens advice bureaux; what evidence he has of any increase in this practice; and if he will make a statement on the responsibility of his Department's offices and agencies to assist clients with their inquiries.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Neither the Department nor its agencies routinely refer customers to citizens advice bureaux: the provision of information and help on social security matters is, properly, a function of the Department and its agencies. However, customers may be told about the bureaux and other voluntary organisations where, for example, the problem lies outside the Department's area or where benefit is refused and help with an appeal is sought.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in 1991–92 of increasing the basic retirement pension by £5 per week for a single pensioner and £8 a week for a married couple, assuming similar increases in linked benefits and in income-related benefits for pensioners, giving figures(a) gross and (b) net of tax revenues and savings in other benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The gross cost would be £3·1 billion. Net of income tax, the figure would be £2·9 billion. If those in receipt of a linked benefit but not the pensioner premium did not receive a similar increase in their income-related benefit, the net cost would fall to £2·8 billion.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost, net of savings in tax, of uprating the retirement pension, income support pension premium and housing benefit pensioner premium by £5 per week for single pensioners and £8 per week for pensioner couples in 1991–92; and if he will set out for linked benefits the cost in 1991–92 that would arise from these changes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The gross cost of increasing these and the linked contributory benefits by £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for a pensioner couple is £3·1 billion. The cost, net of tax, would be £2·9 billion; this includes £0·5 billion to increase the linked benefits.
  531
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which benefits have a statutory requirement to link(a) the level of benefit to the retirement pension level and (b) the level of increase at uprating to the same level of increase for retirement pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following benefits are paid at rates which are linked by statute to that of the retirement pension: widow's pension, widowed mother's allowance and invalidity benefit. Unemployment benefit and sickness benefit are also linked for certain categories of recipient over pensionable age. The Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review the value of the category A retirement pension on an annual basis and increase it if appropriate; if the pension rate is increased the level of the above benefits will be raised also.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update to 1988 the tables on real rises in household incomes since 1979, provided in his reply of 26 July 1990 to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths)Official Report, columns 501–2.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the amount of the reduction in community charge benefit payments in 1991–92 due to the £140 reduction in headline bills.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The reduction is about £850 million.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost to his Department in 1991–92 of abolishing the poll tax 20 per cent. contribution rule.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimate is that the total cost in 1991–92 of awarding 100 per cent. maximum community charge benefit would be £440 million at current benefit levels. Such a change would affect all people receiving community charge benefit including those people on income support and equivalent incomes. This estimate assumes that no reductions are made in the income-related benefit levels which were adjusted in April 1989, to include help towards the 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge, at an estimated cost of £500 million.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be saved by his Department in community charge benefit subsidy in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92 for each local authority which is a housing benefit authority as a result of poll tax capping.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total percentage of applicants for family credit who were turned down in each of the most recent 24 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the 532
  Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the organisations consulted by the Social Security Advisory Committee about his Department's proposed changes to the severe disability premium regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that the Social Security Advisory Committee wrote to six organisations concerned with disabled people or their carers, seeking their views on the proposed amendment to regulations. The organisations were as follows:

  The Disability Alliance

  The Disablement Income Group

  RADAR

  Carers' National Association

  The Spastics Society

  British Council of Organisations of Disabled People

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people under the age of 25 years are in receipt of(a) community charge benefit and (b) housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The most recent survey information indicates that in May 1989, a total of 460,000 householders aged less than 25 years in Great Britain were in receipt of housing benefit. This estimate excludes those under 25 years old in Scotland who were in receipt of community charge rebate, but who were not receiving help with rent; this information is not available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Expenditure, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing expenditure in 1989–90, broken down by regions, with Greater London shown as a separate region, for job clubs, the Employment Service, and jobcentres.

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

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table setting out the number of YOP, YTS and YT places available in Greater London in every year from 1975, including figures for 1991, or estimates for 1991 if figures are not available.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is given in the table. Information prior to 1984 is not available. Agreed place information from April 1990 is not available.

  Youth training—number of agreed places in London Region

  Number

  31 March 1984

  36,100

  31 March 1985

  28,900

  31 March 1986

  17,000

  31 March 1987

  37,200

  533

  Number

  31 March 1988

  36,300

  31 March 1989

  30,400

  31 March 1990

  32,700

  Source: SPECTRUM

  On 1 April 1986 YTS changed from a one-year programme to a two-year programme.

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Dangerous Substances (Accidents)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to examine the conclusions of the report published by the joint research centre of the European Commission on lessons learnt from emergencies after accidents in the United Kingdom involving dangerous substances—DOC. EUR. 13322EN.

  Mr. Forth
  The report has been studied, on my behalf, by the Health and Safety Executive. As regards matters that are my responsibility, the lessons learnt from this and other studies are being taken into account in the current fundamental review of EC directive 82/501/EEC, the "Seveso" directive, which deals with major accident hazards.

  Toxic Substances Bulletin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current distribution of the toxic substances bulletin published by the Health and Safety Executive; and what assessment he has made of the benefits to health and safety at work of the bulletin.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest available figures—April 1991—show that there are 2,280 subscribers who receive a total of 2,608 copies of the Health and Safety Executive's toxic substances bulletin. There is also an internal distribution within Government Departments.

  It is a statutory duty of the Health and Safety Commission to make appropriate arrangements for

  Department of Trade and Industry expenditure budget after Revised and Summer Supplementary Estimates 1990–91 and 1991–92

  £ million all figures are net

  1990–91 provision

  1991–92 provision cash terms

  1991–92 provision real terms

  Increase/decrease in real (1990) terms

  VOTE 1

  Central government's own expenditure:

  Regional and general industrial support

  Regional development grants, Regional selective assistance and Selective assistance

  215·4

  156·6

  146·4

  -69·0

  Support for aerospace, shipbuilding and steel manufacture

  Aerospace support and Assistance to the shipbuilding and steel industries1(net of aerospace repayments)

  155·9

  91·9

  85·9

  -70·1

  Central government grants to local authorities:

  Regional development grants

  0·1

  0·0

  0 0

  0·0

  Regional selective assistance

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Total Vote 1

  371·4

  248·5

  232·2

  -139·1

  VOTE 2

  Central government's own expenditure:

  Regional and general support

  Business development and Inner cities initiatives (including Regional enterprise grants)

  85·9

  80·5

  75·2

  -10·7

  534
  providing relevant information to those concerned with health and safety at work. The bulletin has proved to be a useful tool in providing information about current developments on toxic substances, both in the United Kingdom and the European Community, in an easily accessible format. I have arranged for copies of the most recent edition to be placed in the Library of this House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Share Ownership
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) of 4 June, at column 170, on cash limits, if he will outline the reasons why the funds provided for assistance for the share ownership movement have been allocated under the consumer and investor protection programme.

  Mr. Lilley
  The proposed assistance is aimed at increasing the provision of information to investors, allowing informed choices to be made and therefore contributing towards the objectives of my Department's work on consumer and investor protection.

  Cash Limits
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) of 4 June at column 170, on cash limits, if he will set out the increase or decrease in his Department's budget, by expenditure area and in total, in 1991–92 in real terms relative to the expenditure level of the Department after the equivalent supplementary estimate announcement of 1990–91.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  535

  1990–91 provision

  1991–92 provision cash terms

  1991–92 provision real terms

  Increase/decrease in real (1990) terms

  Support for industry

  Industrial research (including Civil aircraft, Education and training, and Telecommunications), Space technology programmes and Miscellaneous support services

  287·1

  265·3

  248·0

  -39·2

  International trade

  50·2

  51·7

  48·4

  -1·8

  Statutory and regulatory work

  (including Measurement and technology support, Protection of innovation, Regulation of Trade and consumer protection and Research establishments)

  74·3

  116·2

  108·6

  34·3

  Central and miscellaneous services

  289·3

  265·4

  248·0

  -41·2

  Public corporations:

  English Industrial Estates Corporation2 (net of realised assets)

  0·0

  -16·8

  -15·7

  -15·7

  Central government grants to local authorities:

  Inner cities initiative

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  0·0

  Other expenditure not included in the planning total:

  Refund of pension adjustment

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  Total Vote 2

  787·4

  763·0

  713·1

  -74·3

  VOTE 3

  Public corporations:

  Nationalised industries external finance—British Shipbuilders

  8·0

  19·0

  17·7

  9·7

  Total DTI

  1,166·8

  1,030·5

  963·1

  -203·7

  1. The lower level of net provision in 1991–92 for airbus development reflects a considerably reduced requirement for launch aid for the A330/340 Airbus in accordance with the launch aid contract and an increased level of expected levy receipts on the A320 Airbus.

  2. Planned gross expenditure by EIEC for 1991–92 is £126·3 million. This will be funded by asset sales. Surplus receipts—£16·8 million—will be surrendered to the DTI.

  Notes to Tables: All figures are for estimates provision net of receipts, rounded to the nearest £0·1 million. The items do not sum to the totals in all cases because of rounding. The table compares the position after the publication on 12 June 1990 of the revised estimate for class IV vote 2 with that after the publication of the summer supplementary estimates for class IV votes 2 and 3 on 13 June 1991. The cash figures for 1991–92 have been converted to 1990–91 prices using the GDP deflator of 7 per cent., as set out in table 2·1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1991–92"—House of Commons No. 300.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 4 June at column 170, to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on cash limits, if he will provide details of the mechanism by which certain items are to be fully met by receipts from the European Community.

  Mr. Lilley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the European Community receipts in question will be appropriated in aid of class IV vote 2. For the purposes of the public expenditure planning total, such receipts are classified as programme 2.7—net payments to European Community institutions—for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible. The consequent net reduction in that programme exactly offsets the increase in my Department's cash limit.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out in tabular form the areas of expenditure covered by the supplementary estimate changes to his Department's cash limit and running cost limits for 1991–92 announced on 4 June at column 170 in ascending cash value order.
  536
  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is set out, although not in ascending cash value order, in the summary to the summer supplementary estimate for class IV vote 2 which were presented to the House on 13 June.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to which sections and sub-headings of the estimate for class IV, vote 2, each of the charges and activities described in his announcement of 4 June at column 170 on cash limit changes will be attributed.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is set out in the summer supplementary estimate for class IV vote 2 which was presented to the House on 13 June.

  Consumer Safety
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) of 4 June, at column 170 on cash limits, if he will list the activities for which funds have been allocated to the Department's promotion of consumer safety.

  Mr. Lilley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the sum of £71,000 for my Department's promotion of consumer safety will be allocated towards the moving, construction, publicising
  537
  and operation of the child safety "Hazard Dome" during 1991 at the Lightwater Valley theme park in North Yorkshire as part of the home safety awareness scheme.

  Arms Industries
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what figures he has for the amount of money being spent in the United Kingdom on research into conversion of arms industries to non-arms production.

  Mr. Leigh
  Information of this sort is not collected centrally.

  South Africa
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the trade restrictions that are still in force in respect of South Africa.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) on 7 May Official Report, column 409.

  Overseas Exhibitions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants were made from public funds towards travel and costs of exhibition stands at Dubai '91 and the international defence equipment and aviation exhibition in Ankara, November 1991.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  To date no financial subsidy has been provided by the Department of Trade and Industry to exhibitors at Dubai '91 and the international defence equipment and aviation exhibition, Ankara. The subsidy for companies which qualify for support will be at the standard rate of 50 per cent. of the eligible costs of space and stand construction and up to two travel grants at the appropriate country rates for Dubai and Turkey.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for the year 1990.

  Mr. Leigh
  The 17th annual report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1990. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

  Post Office Counter Services
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress Post Office Counters has made in implementing the recommendations of the 1988 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Post Office counter services at Crown offices.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission reported on Post Office counter services at Crown offices on 23 June 1988, Cm 398. Post Office Counters' initial response to this report was made available to the House on 21 December 1988,Official Report, columns 265–66. My Department agreed with Post Office Counters a detailed timetable for implementation of the accepted recommendations, and a reporting regime involving interim reports
  538
  on progress, a main report in mid-1989, Official Report, 27 July 1989, column 812 and a final report in June 1991. I am today placing copies of the final report by Post Office Counters in the Library of the House.

  Post Office Counters was able to accept, in whole or in part, 79 of the MMC's 80 recommendations. Action has now been completed on 76 recommendations. Of these, Post Office Counters has concluded, on the basis of detailed work, that two linked recommendations—Nos. 59 and 60—are impractical in the form suggested by the MMC. These recommendations propose that clients should each decide, on the basis of different options presented by Post Office Counters, the size and shape of network that they are willing to pay for. Post Office Counters has accepted the principle lying behind these recommendations, that clients' requirements should inform the provision of services and products, and will continue to look at ways of bringing this principle into their discussions with clients.

  Post Office Counters continues to take action on the three remaining recommendations. These are:
  recommendation 6a, dealing with the charging of occupancy costs for property on an open market rental basis; this depends on hardware and software becoming fully operational, forecast for April 1992;
  recommendation 18, concerning the assumption by Counters from Royal Mail of responsibility for all stamp vending machines; some of these have required modification to provide consistent customer service, and the handover should be completed by the end of 1991;
  recommendation 67f, proposing that the costs of the data transmission network he shared among its users; this will be further pursued when the related network automation plans are authorised— (earliest completion date July 1992).

  My officials will continue to monitor progress on the implementation of these three outstanding recommendations.

  The original report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was based on a wide-ranging and thorough review of counter services in Crown offices; I commend Post Office Counters for the conscientious and constructive manner in which it has addressed the MMC recommendations.

  Textile Machinery
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what consultations he has had with British textile machinery manufacturers about proposed new European regulations on magnetic compatibility;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that British textile machinery manufacturers do not suffer unnecessarily under the terms of proposed new European regulations on magnetic compatibility;

  (3) if he has any plans to visit Sir James Farmer Norton and Co. to discuss the possible impact of proposed new regulations on magnetic compatibility;

  (4) if he will list those testing facilities which currently exist in the north-west of England which could be used for testing compliance of heavy machinery with proposed new regulations on magnetic compatibility.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 June 1991]: My officials met officers and members of the British Textile Machinery Association on 12 June to discuss the electro-magnetic

  539
  compatibility directive. I am not aware of any reason why British textile machinery manufacturers should be disadvantaged by the directive.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Sir James Farmer Norton and Co.

  Manufacturers following the "standards" route to compliance with the directive may use any test acilities, including their own. I regret that the Department does not have a list of such facilities in the north-west of England.

  "Competent bodies" have not yet been appointed to issue technical reports or certificates for manufacturers following the "technical file" route to compliance with the directive.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Basle Convention
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which have signed the Basle convention and the dates on which these signatures were presented.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following countries have signed the Basle convention:

  Date

  1989

  Afghanistan

  22 March 1989

  Argentina

  28 June 1989

  Bahrain

  22 March 1989

  Belgium

  22 March 1989

  Bolivia

  22 March 1989

  Canada

  22 March 1989

  Colombia

  22 March 1989

  Cyprus

  22 March 1989

  Denmark

  22 March 1989

  Ecuador

  22 March 1989

  European Economic Community

  22 March 1989

  Finland

  22 March 1989

  France

  22 March 1989

  Germany, Federal Republic of

  23 October 1989

  Greece

  22 March 1989

  Guatemala

  22 March 1989

  Haiti

  22 March 1989

  Hungary

  22 March 1989

  Israel

  22 March 1989

  Italy

  22 March 1989

  Jordan

  22 March 1989

  Kuwait

  22 March 1989

  Lebanon

  22 March 1989

  Leichtenstein

  22 March 1989

  Luxembourg

  22 March 1989

  Mexico

  22 March 1989

  Netherlands

  22 March 1989

  New Zealand

  18 December 1989

  Norway

  22 March 1989

  Panama

  22 March 1989

  Philippines

  22 March 1989

  Portugal

  26 June 1989

  Saudi Arabia

  22 March 1989

  Spain

  22 March 1989

  Sweden

  22 March 1989

  Switzerland

  22 March 1989

  Syria

  11 October 1989

  Turkey

  22 March 1989

  United Arab Emirates

  22 March 1989

  United Kingdom

  6 October 1989

  Uruguay

  22 March 1989

  Venezuela

  22 March 1989

  1990–91

  Austria

  19 March 1990

  Chile

  31 January 1990

  China

  22 March 1990

  540

  Date

  E1 Salvador

  22 March 1990

  France

  7 January 1991

  German Democratic Republic

  19 March 1990

  Hungary

  21 May 1990

  India

  15 March 1990

  Ireland

  19 January 1990

  Nigeria

  15 March 1990

  Poland

  22 March 1990

  Romania

  27 February 1990

  Thailand

  22 March 1990

  United States of America

  22 March 1990

  Strategic Arms Reduction
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterpart in the United States of America on strategic arms reduction talks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discusses arms control issues regularly with Mr. Baker and we keep in very close contact with the United States Administration on the subject at other levels. The START talks themselves are a matter for the United States and Soviet Union.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring his Department undertakes of the United States and Soviet proposals for reducing the number of nuclear warheads; and what sources of expertise are available to him on the quantity of fissile material that might be made redundant if a strategic arms reduction treaty is concluded.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have strongly supported United States and Soviet negotiations for reduction of their nuclear arsenals. Fissile material made redundant under strategic arms reduction treaty is a matter for the two parties.

  Journalists' Deaths (Iraq)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Red Cross and the Red Crescent concerning the investigation of the disappearance of the British television journalist, Roseanna Della Casa, and the deaths of Nick Della Casa and Charles Maxwell in the Turkish-Iraqi border region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British mission to the United Nations in Geneva first raised the matter of the disappearance of Rosanna della Casa, Nicholas della Casa and Charles Maxwell with the International Committee of the Red Cross on 17 April 1991. ICRC delegates in Iraq have since then had many written and oral contacts with the Iraqi authorities. They continue actively to pursue the disappearance of Rosanna della Casa.

  We maintain regular contact with the ICRC in Geneva. We have had no direct contacts with the Red Crescent.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to report to the House details of the report of the visit made
  541
  by the International Atomic Energy Agency's special inspection team in Iraq between 14 and 22 May, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 687.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It would be wrong for us to publish details of IAEA documents communicated in confidence to IAEA member states. It is for the IAEA, with the UN special commission, to make such details public.

  Thailand (Sanctuary)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Thai Government on the proposed forced repatriation of Burmese people who have sought sanctuary in Thailand.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office raised the subject of Burmese immigrants in Thailand with the Thai Foreign Minister on 6 June. The Thai authorities are aware of our concern that no Burmese should be forcibly returned to face persecution in Burma.

  Chittagong Hill Tracts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a copy of the report produced by the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Yes. The report is a useful contribution to public knowledge and debate about the problems of the Chittagong hill tracts.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Bangladesh regarding reports of human rights violations of ethnic minorities in the Chittagong hill tracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have regularly made our concerns about the situation in the Chittagong Hill tracts known to the Government of Bangladesh. We welcome their recent decision to implement the 1989 devolution plans in full, to allow the three hill tract councils greater autonomy.

  Office for Emergency Operations in Africa
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, at the meeting of United Nations heads of agencies, donors and nongovernmental organisations on 27 June, in New York, Her Majesty's Government will support the proposal to re-establish the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are considering the best organisational response to the serious situation in Africa. As I told the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 17 June, the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa provided excellent inter-agency co-operation 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.

  Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to signing the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The AMB treaty is a bilateral agreement between the United States and Soviet Union; the question of United Kingdom signature does not therefore arise.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 49, if he will give such information as is available without disproportionate cost, in the form of his answers of 30 April 1990, Official Report, column 405, and 10 May 1990, Official Report, column 205.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 June 1991, c. 206.]: The figures for ODA energy consumption and expenditure in the financial year 1990–91 were as follows:

  Consumption

  Figures

  (i) Electricity (kwh)

  6,268,388

  (ii) Gas (therms)

  486,942

  (iii) Fuel Oil (litres)

  66,221

  Expenditure

  £

  (i)Electricity

  393,101

  (ii) Gas

  185,149

  (iii) Fuel Oil

  11,316

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Voluntary-aided Schools
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the amounts of(a) planned and (b) actual expenditure on capital projects for voluntary-aided schools in each of the last five years; and what is the planned expenditure for 1991–92.

  Mr. Fallon
  Figures for planned and actual expenditure on capital building work at voluntary aided and special agreement schools between 1986 and 1992 are as follows:

  (a) Planned£ million

  (b) Actual£ million

  1986–87

  27·8

  31·8

  1987–88

  39·1

  37·2

  1988–89

  55·3

  50·3

  1989–90

  65·3

  67·6

  1990–91

  87·2

  75·3

  1991–92

  98·8

  —

  Note:

  These figures include governors' contributions but exclude any work conducted off-programme and any which would be the responsibility of the Local Education Authority.

  School Meals
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has of the number of local education authorities which have now discontinued the provision of school meals on an authority-wide basis; and if he will list the authorities.
  543
  Mr. Fallon
  All local education authorities in England are obliged to provide a free school meal for any pupil whose family is on income support. In January 1990, the latest date for which information is available, some paid meals were also provided in all authorities.

  School Premises
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has of the proportion of secondary school places in each local education authority that are in temporary accommodation; and whether he will list all such authorities with more than 20 per cent. in temporary accommodation, giving the estimated proportion of such places in each case.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not available centrally.

  Brent (Schoolchildren)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state how many children who are resident in the London borough of Brent are educated in the London borough of Barnet.

  Mr. Fallon
  As at January 1990, a total of 1,634 school pupils belonging to the area of the London borough of Brent were being educated in the London borough of Barnet.

  Education, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a table setting out the number of pupils in Greater London reaching the school leaving age in every year from 1975, including figures for 1991 or estimates for 1991 if figures are not available.

  Mr. Fallon
  The table shows the number of pupils in maintained secondary schools in Greater London in their final year of compulsory education. The figure for 1990–91 has been estimated on the basis of the number of pupils in their penultimate year of compulsory education in 1989–90.

  Pupils in their final year of compulsory education in maintained secondary schools in Greater London, academic years 1974–75 to 1990–91.

  (Thousands)

  1974–75

  87·9

  1975–76

  88·9

  1976–77

  91·2

  1977–78

  92·7

  1978–79

  93·2

  1979–80

  94·1

  1980–81

  92·6

  1981–82

  90·5

  1982–83

  87·5

  1983–84

  83·9

  1984–85

  80·0

  1985–86

  75·5

  1986–87

  75·4

  1987–88

  69·4

  1988–89

  64·9

  1989–90

  62·4

  1990–91

  160·0

  1Estimated.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he has any plans to provide further funds for London's education service;
  544
  (2) if he has received a copy of the Association of London Authorities' report "Taking Stock, The Resources Needed to Fund London's Education Service."

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend has seen the document. The Government have provided a financial framework in which London councils can provide a high-quality education service if they manage their affairs well. Standard spending assessments for London for all services are on average 21 per cent. higher in 1991–92 than in 1990–91, while education standard spending assessments have risen 18 per cent. on average. Inner London also receives help through special education grants, which total £70 million in 1991–92 alone. The average SSA allowance for pupils of compulsory school age is around 50 per cent. higher in inner London than in Barnsley or Sheffield.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a table for Greater London, showing the number of places available at, and the number of 16-year-old students entering separately, sixth forms, sixth-form colleges, tertiary colleges, and further education colleges in every year from 1975, including figures for 1991 or estimates for 1991 if figures are not available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of places available at, and the number of 16-year-old students entering, sixth-form colleges is not available centrally. The number of full or part-time students aged 16 years in sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges are as follows:

  Sixth forms (thousands)

  Sixth form colleges (thousands)

  Further education (thousands)

  Percentage of population aged 16l

  1974–75

  26·8

  1·2

  —

  —

  1975–76

  29·6

  1·3

  —

  —

  1976–77

  30·8

  1·4

  —

  —

  1977–78

  30·0

  0·9

  —

  —

  1978–79

  30·4

  1·0

  —

  —

  1979–80

  30·2

  1·2

  21·4

  —

  1980–81

  31·0

  1·3

  —

  —

  1981–82

  33·7

  1·4

  20·7

  60

  1982–83

  32·6

  1·5

  21·0

  60

  1983–84

  30·1

  1·4

  22·1

  61

  1984–85

  28·2

  1·5

  22·2

  62

  1985–86

  26·5

  1·8

  20·4

  61

  1986–87

  24·6

  1·8

  21·7

  64

  1987–88

  24·5

  0·9

  21·6

  64

  1988–89

  22·5

  2·4

  20·8

  65

  1989–90

  22·2

  2·3

  21·5

  70

  1 Source: DES Statistical Bulletins 6/87 and 14/91.

  Notes:

  (1) Age is at 31 August at the start of the academic year.

  (2) Adult Education Centres have been excluded.

  (3) Information on which to make reasonable estimates for 1990–91 is not yet available.

  (4) GLC data for further education colleges are not readily available for 1974–75 to 1978–79 and 1980–81.

  (5) GLC data for tertiary colleges are not readily available.

  Teacher Training, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he plans to take in respect of London in response to the conclusions of Her Majesty's inspector's report on training teachers for inner city schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  We have asked the higher education funding councils to give specific consideration, in the
  545
  allocation of initial teacher training places, to courses which are particularly focused on the needs of inner city schools and which give the students concerned experience of teaching in such areas.

  We have made available grants to the Urban Learning Foundation, whose work in inner London was commended in Her Majesty's inspector's report, and the St. Peter's Saltley project, which provides teaching experience in inner city Birmingham for trainee teachers.

  We have commissioned research by Professor Desmond Nuttall of the London School of Economics to establish whether increasing the number of trainees at institutions in London would in itself increase the number of those taking up first appointments there.

  Finally, in the light of Her Majesty's inspector's findings, the Teaching as a Career Unit's spring advertising campaign "Train to Teach in London" was specifically targeted towards people resident in London, more than 11,000 of whom responded.

  Blind Students
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he intends that blind and partially sighted students should have the opportunity to take the GCSE as key stage 4 of the national curriculum;

  (2) what arrangements are being made by his Department to ensure that examination papers for the GCSE are available in Braille.

  Mr. Eggar
  Examination papers are made available in braille for those visually impaired candidates who are notified to the examining groups as needing this facility. The cost of brailling papers is spread evenly over the examination fees of all GCSE candidates. I would envisage these arrangements continuing with the introduction of the national curriculum.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received a report on the meeting hosted at Warwick university on 22 May by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on the development of environmental education and business schools, universities and polytechnics.

  Mr. Fallon
  Yes.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish proposals to put into effect his policy of expecting whole classes of pupils who have taken examinations for GCSE or equivalent qualifications in national curriculum subjects early from the further requirements of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The National Curriculum Council, as required by section 20(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988, will next week give notice of my proposal to except whole classes of pupils who have taken examinations for GCSE or equivalent qualifications in national curriculum subjects early from all the provisions of the national curriculum relating to that subject at key stage 4. I announced my intention of issuing such a proposal in January. Copies of my proposal have been placed in the Library.
  546
  My proposal is that where groups of particularly able pupils complete full courses of studies in particular national curriculum subjects before the last year of key stage 4 and take the relevant GCSE or equivalent examinations in those subjects, they should be discharged from any further requirement to follow the programmes of study or be formally assessed in those subjects. Pupils in such circumstances would then be free to use in other ways the time which they would otherwise have spent continuing to follow national curriculum requirements, as is already possible for individual pupils who take their GCSEs early.

  At present, the obligation to study further the relevant provisions of the national curriculum can be lifted only, in the case of individual pupils completing their national curriculum studies early, by moving such pupils into classes of older pupils. It is my view that the present restriction upon the accelerated progress of whole classes of pupils should now be removed.

  The period for the submission of evidence and representations on the proposals to the National Curriculum Council will end on 27 September 1991. The council will then report to me. I intend to publish draft regulations, as required by section 20(5) of the Act, in November 1991. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is separately directing the statutory consultation process in Wales.

  Student Support
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information about Government support for students he will make available this year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have today published a booklet, "Student Grants and Loans 1991–92". It brings together for the first time information on the two main parts of the Government's system of financial support for students. Copies are being sent—in England and Wales—to schools with sixth forms, colleges, local education authorities and careers information officers; and to higher education institutions throughout the United Kingdom. Further copies are available on request. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether following the current review of the Education (School Government) Regulations 1989, he will amend the regulations in order to prevent the chairman and governors of a maintained school that agrees to close in order to assist the establishment of a city technology college from acquiring employment with the city technology college trust or a body sponsoring a city technical college.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 June 1991]: Such an amendment would be neither statutorily possible nor desirable.

SCOTLAND

  Students
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for academic year 1990–91(a) the number of students from Scotland in receipt of grants to attend

  547
  universities or colleges in England and Wales and (b) the number of students not domiciled in Scotland attending Scottish universities and colleges; and what percentage of the total that figure represents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available figures for the number of undergraduate students attending Scottish universities and colleges who are not domiciled in Scotland are for academic year 1989–90. These are set out in the table.

  Attending universities and colleges in Scotland

  Not domiciled in Scotland

  Percentage

  Universities

  44,094

  14,601

  33

  Colleges

  36,825

  2,581

  7

  80,919

  17,182

  21

  In academic year 1989–90, the number of undergraduate students domiciled in Scotland who were in receipt of grants to attend universities and colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was 4,338. Provisional figures for academic year 1990–91 indicate that this figure will rise to 4,555.

  Pedestrian Crossing, Fraser Park
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Highlands regional council concerning a survey carried out in 1990 with a view to the provision of a pedestrian crossing on the A96 at Fraser Park, Nairn.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The findings of the survey carried out by Highland regional council in 1990 showed that the pedestrian-vehicle flows at this location fell well short of the figure required to meet the criteria justifying the provision of a crossing. I understand that the council plans a further survey in July this year.

  Deer
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the West Grampian Deer Management Group and Mr. John Grant of Rothiemurchus.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The West Grampian Deer Management Group, of which Mr. Grant is a member, has recently responded to our consultation paper on natural heritage areas.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics he has on the number of trained or qualified staff in(a) children's homes, (b) homes for the elderly and (c) hostels for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not held centrally on the number of qualified staff in establishments in the independent sector or on the training of staff in all sectors. In local authority homes for children and the elderly, there were, at October 1989, 434 and 775 staff respectively with a formal qualification; but the corresponding information on homes for the mentally handicapped is not separately identified. A total of 1,545 officers in charge and assistant officers in charge of local authority residential establishments were qualified as follows:
  548

  Per cent.

  Certificate of Qualification in Social Work—or equivalent

  9

  Certificate in Social Service

  14

  Other Social Service Qualifications

  5

  Nursing Qualifications

  22

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's forecast for the balance of payments deficit in the first half of 1992 at an annualised rate.

  Mr. Maples
  The figure is £8 billion.

  Equipment (Write-off)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to allow an earlier write-off of capital equipment purchased by manufacturing industry.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to do so. The present capital allowance regime for equipment already provides a generous average rate of depreciation for tax purposes.

  VAT (Police Cars)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the way police authorities pay value added tax on police cars they buy.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to change the VAT treatment of police cars. Where VAT is non-recoverable by a police authority, as is the case when it purchases police cars, this is allowed for in its funding.

  Institute of Directors
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations about economic policy he has received from the Institute of Directors.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox).

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to persuade the high street banks to reduce their margins on loans to small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to assess the impact of high interest rates on small businesses.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend has asked Treasury officials and the Bank of England to look into these questions.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from he Confederation of British Industry regarding interest rate policy.
  549
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of mortgage repossessions in 1990.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of mortgage repossessions in 1990.

  Mr. John Maples
  Figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that 43,890 properties were repossessed in 1990.

  Economic Downturn
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the current downturn on the economy in the north-west and south-east.

  Mr. Mellor
  No regions are immune from the current recession, but falling inflation will provide a firm foundation for economic growth in the north-west and south-east and throughout the United Kingdom.

  Earnings
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in real take-home pay for a married man with two children on average earnings between 1979 and 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. J. Pawsey).

  Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the recent Office of Manpower Economics report comparing civil service pay levels with the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Each of the civil service long-term pay agreements provides for a survey every four years of the pay and benefit levels in relevant jobs outside the public services sector to inform the pay negotiations. There are no such surveys this year. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer met representatives of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants on 11 June, they referred among other things to the survey conducted last year in respect of executive and related staff.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue from privatisation receipts since 1979 in today's prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  Total privatisation proceeds since 1979 to 1990–91 are about £41 billion in 1990–91 prices.

  Inflation
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.
  550
  Mr. Maples
  The 12-month all-items RPI inflation rate was 5·8 per cent. in May, the lowest rate since August 1988. RPI inflation is now more than 5 percentage points below its peak last autumn and has fallen for seven successive months. We are on track for the Budget forecast of 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter of this year.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any representations from British commerce or industry urging the withdrawal of the £ sterling from the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS.

  Mr. Maples
  I have received very few such representations.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of tax revenue from the profits of inward investing companies from overseas(a) for the current year and (b) for 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimates of United Kingdom taxes on profits due abroad, which are published in table 5.1 of the 1990 Blue Book, are given in the table for 1979 and 1989, the latest year for which information is available.

  million

  1979

  1,047

  1989

  5,952

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of United States investment in the EC during 1990 was in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  Latest available figures from the OECD show that in 1988 and 1989 over 60 per cent. of total United States direct investment in the EC was in the United Kingdom.

  Foreign Governments (Rates Bills)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Governments with official premises in London have not paid their rates bills; what are the individual amounts concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The Crown Property Unit, formerly the Rating of Government Property Department, collects the beneficial portion of the rates from diplomatic missions.

  The following missions have arrears outstanding in respect of claims made before 1 April 1991 on official premises in London.

  Amount outstanding (£)

  Afghanistan

  12,300

  Cote d'lvoire

  14,900

  France

  10,900

  Grenada

  5,000

  Iran

  16,200

  Iraq

  115,300

  Jordan

  1,500

  551

  Amount outstanding (£)

  Liberia

  1,200

  Libya

  21,300

  Morocco

  4,000

  Pakistan

  8,600

  Portugal

  1,900

  Sierra Leone

  13,100

  Sudan

  1,000

  Uganda

  34,900

  Venezuela

  26,600

  Zambia

  6,800

  The Crown Property Unit and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regularly approach countries that are in arrears and urge them to make payment.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 114–16, on mortgage payments, if he will give the information on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Maude
  Monthly figures may be obtained by multiplying the weekly figures in the previous answer by 52 and divided by 12.

  Leased Car Tax
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to exempt community nurses from leased car tax.

  Mr. Maude
  Community nurses are treated in the same way as all other employees for the purpose of the car benefit scale charges and there are no plans to change that.

  VAT
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of licensed employment agencies are designated as agent and what proportion as principal for VAT purposes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Records of whether licensed employment agencies are designated as agent or as principal for VAT purposes are not held centrally and the information sought could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was collected in VAT payments from(a) nursing agencies licensed under the Nursing Agencies Act 1957 and (b) licensed employment agencies in the last financial year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is not possible to isolate total VAT payments made by nursing agencies licensed under the Nursing Agencies Act 1957 or licensed employment agents. Nor is sufficiently detailed information available on consumers' expenditure in this area to make an estimate.

  Taxation
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of taxpayers pay a smaller percentage of their earnings in direct and indirect taxes in 1991–92 than in 1978–79:
  552
  (2) what proportion of taxpayers pay a smaller percentage of their earnings in income tax and national insurance contributions in 1991–92 than in 1978–79.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no data available which match up the tax payments of particular taxpayers in 1991–92 with payments by the same taxpayers in 1978–79.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of earnings was paid in income tax and national insurance contributions, less child benefit where appropriate, by a single person, and by a married couple with two children, on an income of up to half average male earnings, between half and average male earnings, and above average male earnings, in 1978–79; what is the comparable information for 1991–92; and how many taxpayers, in total, were within each of those three earning groups in each case.

  Mr. Maude
  Figures for a single person, and a married man with two children, on an income of half, average, and one-and-a-half times average male earnings are set out in the table. These figures are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances; have income only from employment; and pay class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate. For other taxpayers, tax payments will vary according to the level and sources of their income, their family circumstances, their entitlement to other tax reliefs and so on.

  Liability to tax depends on total income rather than on earnings; taxpayers may or may not be earners, and earners may or may not be taxpayers. Information on the number of earners in different earnings groups may be found in the New Earnings Survey.

  Percentage of earnings paid in income tax and NICs

  Multiples of average

  1/2

  1

  11/2

  1978–79

  Single

  23·6

  31·5

  33·3

  Married man with two children1

  2·5

  20·9

  26·2

  1991–92

  Single

  22·3

  28·2

  28·1

  Married man with two children1

  7·7

  20·8

  23·2

  1 Including child tax allowances and less child benefit.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of earnings was paid in direct and indirect taxation by a single person, and a married couple with two children, on an income of up to half average male earnings, between half and average male earnings, and above average male earnings, in 1978–79; and if he will give the comparable figure for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Figures for a single person, and a married couple with two children, on average male earnings are set out in the table. These figures are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances; have income only from employment; and pay class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  The estimates of indirect taxes are based on equations derived from the Family Expenditure Survey, making the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. Reliable estimates cannot be made outside the range of three quarters to one-and-a-half times average male earnings.
  553
  For other taxpayers, tax payments will vary according to the level and sources of their income, their family circumstances, their entitlement to other tax reliefs, the level and pattern of their expenditure and so on.

  Table: Percentage of earnings paid in direct and indirect taxes1At average male earnings

  1978–79

  1992–93

  Single

  42·5

  40·6

  One earner married couple with two children

  32·2

  33·4

  1 Excluding local taxes.

  Sport Governing Bodies
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt the national governing bodies of sport from corporation tax.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Charitable Giving
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated level of charitable giving in 1990.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no comprehensive data on donations to charities, but there is evidence of a substantial increase in real terms in recent years. For example, the Charities Aid Foundation's estimates show that donations to the top 200 fund-raising charities amounted to £1,058 million in 1988–89 which, in real terms, is more than double the corresponding figure for 1978–79.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average annual rate of growth in manufacturing exports was between 1974 and 1979; and what is the equivalent figure for the years 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  On a balance of payments basis the United Kingdom volume of exports of manufactures' is estimated to have risen by an average of 2 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979. The equivalent figure for the period 1979 to 1990 is 4 per cent. a year.

  1SITC (Rev. 3) Sections 5 to 8.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies have been made by Her Majesty's Government of the benefit for the United Kingdom of economic and monetary union and a common currency, respectively.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 26 June 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to him on 7 December 1990 at column 216. In addition, Her Majesty's Government published in January this year draft proposals for a hard ecu, to be managed by a European monetary fund; these were tabled at the intergovernmental conference. In his speech to the House on 24 January, Official Report, column 470, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's assessment both of a single currency and of our proposals for a hard ecu.

  Unincorporated Businesses
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on Treasury revenues of extending to unincorporated business the loss carry-back provisions for incorporated businesses proposed by the Government in new clause 46 of the Finance Bill.

  Mr. Maude
  The loss relief provisions contained in new clause 46 of the Finance Bill apply to losses for accounting periods ending on or after 1 April 1991. The effect of extending the provisions to unincorporated businesses would depend on the amount of any losses made in those and later accounting periods, but it might reduce tax receipts by £50 million in 1991–92, £35 million in 1992–93 and £15 million annually thereafter.

HEALTH

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that health authorities implement the new arrangements for junior doctors' hours as quickly as possible.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Task forces have been set up throughout the country to assist regional, district and special health authorities and NHS trusts in ensuring that the contracted hours of duty of doctors in training are reduced to the agreed limits as soon as is practicable.

  Task forces will be responsible for ensuring that every training post is identified, for ascertaining the current working practice of each training post and for identifying those in which the doctors are contracted for duty for hours in excess of the agreed limits. They will be expected to advise on ways of reducing contracted hours of duty, for monitoring progress in achieving the required reductions in hours and for reporting on progress at six-monthly intervals to the ministerial and technical groups.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to maintain downward pressure on junior doctors' hours.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The ministerial group on junior doctors' hours, which I chair, and its supporting technical group, will be monitoring progress on reducing the hours of duty of hospital doctors and dentists in training, through the implementation of the guidance issued on 12 June. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library.

  Nurses
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has issued any guidance to employment agencies which supply unqualified nursing staff for private clients, on the assessment of client needs and general good practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The licensing and control of employment agencies that supply unqualified nursing staff is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to amend the Nursing Agencies Act 1957 to bring the provision of unqualified nursing staff under the terms of the Act.
  555
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Sickle-cell Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority, and by district health authority, for the last 10 years, the amount of funding at current prices which has been provided for sickle-cell treatment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Local Authority Homes (Transfer)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the local authorities' continuing responsibilities for residents of former local authority part III homes which are transferred to the private or voluntary sectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 25 June at column 428.

  Women's Health
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's new booklet on women's health.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  "Your Health—A Guide to Services for Women", published on Monday 24 June, is part of the wider Government initiative to improve and promote health. It draws together, in a single publication, brief details of the main health services which are available to women, encourages full use of them and gives tips on how to get the best out of those services.

  The booklet highlights the many preventive services, such as breast and cervical cancer screening, which are available to protect and promote women's health. It also shows where more information can be obtained on a range of issues in the form of leaflets, advice lines or organisations to contact.

  There will be a wide distribution of the booklet, including in hospital waiting rooms, GP surgeries, pharmacies, public libraries and citizens advice bureaux. It will also be advertised in women's magazines and national newspapers with copies available to those requesting them by Freepost or Freephone.

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Appointments
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be reviewing the appointments of chairmen of district health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The terms of office of 108 chairmen of district health authorities come up for review on 31 March 1992. Appointments and reappointments will be announced in due course. If hon. Members wish to nominate any individuals for appointment they are invited to write to me by the end of July.

  Blood Transfusions (HIV)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how blood given by donors is screened to ensure that it is free of the HIV virus; whether the screening process 556
  guarantees that all blood used for transfusions is free of the virus; and when the current screening process started being used.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since September 1983 potential donors who have engaged in high-risk activities have been asked not to give blood. From October 1985, all blood donations have been tested for the presence of the HIV antibody using evaluated methods. Any positive samples undergo confirmatory tests at a reference laboratory. As a further safeguard, blood products such as factor VIII are heat-treated to inactivate any trace of the virus that may be present. Also, doctors are advised by the profession not to give blood to patients unnecessarily.

  All reasonable steps are taken to exclude HIV infection from the blood supply in this country.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has supplied, in response to representations from non-haemophiliacs infected with HIV virus from NHS blood transfusions, in respect of the effects of pre-existing haemophilia on the employment, mortgage and insurance prospects of HIV-infected haemophiliacs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have not considered it necessary to supply evidence in response to representations.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the haemophiliacs infected with the HIV virus who have received payments from his Department were related.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Among the haemophiliacs infected with HIV, we understand that there are 65 pairs and six trios of brothers who are infected. We believe there may be a significant number of other cases where HIV-infected haemophiliacs are related, for example, grandfathers, grandsons, uncles and nephews, but these cannot be readily identified from the available information. In addition, there are a number of cases where the haemophiliac's spouse or partner has become infected.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that people who have been infected with the HIV virus from an NHS blood transfusion and are taking legal action are provided with the information they require about the blood they were given and the donor who provided it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Disclosure of information and discovery of documents in litigation are governed by court procedures, which include scope for claiming public interest immunity in appropriate cases.

  Royal National Institute for Rheumatic Fevers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers of restraint or other controls he has over the employment and dismissal of employees including nurses, auxiliaries, ancillary workers and consultants, the procurement of supplies, the letting of contracts, the provision of ear, nose and throat services, casualty departments and maternity services and outpatient clinics, the range of operations provided, the sale of property, and the maintenance of buildings, in the case of the Royal National Institute for Rheumatic Fevers in Bath.
  557
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS trust, like all other NHS trusts, is operationally independent and can exercise the powers given to NHS trusts in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to employ staff on conditions they consider appropriate, to buy and sell property and to enter into NHS and other contracts. The trust board is responsible for determining the overall policies of the trust. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a range of reserve powers to intervene in trusts' affairs as defined at paragraph 6 of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Country and Year of Ban

  Years Studied

  Consumption Gms/Adult

  Average Change Percentage per annum

  From

  To

  Total ban on tobacco motion for health reasons

  Iceland 1972

  72–86

  3,426

  3,326

  -0·2

  Finland 1978

  78–86

  2,087

  2,017

  -0·4

  Norway 1975

  75–86

  2,017

  1,927

  -0·8

  Portugal 1983

  83–86

  2,068

  1,750

  - 5·1

  Advertising never permitted for political reasons

  Albania

  80–86

  1,254

  1,183

  -0·9

  Bulgaria

  80–86

  2,330

  2,282

  -0·3

  Czechoslovakia

  80–86

  2,612

  2,374

  -1·8

  East Germany

  80–86

  2,403

  2,408

  0·0

  Hungary

  80–86

  3,420

  3,246

  -0·8

  Poland

  80–86

  3,529

  3,558

  + 0·1

  Rumania

  80–86

  2,027

  2,071

  +0·4

  Soviet Union

  80–86

  2,106

  2,149

  +0·3

  Yugoslavia

  80–86

  3,269

  3,102

  -0·9

  These figures compare with an average change in the United Kingdom of minus 2 per cent. during the period 1970–86.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the location of the five regional monitoring centres established to monitor NHS trusts; when the centres will start their monitoring; what matters will be monitored; how many staff each centre will employ; what accommodation each centre will occupy; what budget will be allocated to each centre over each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are intending to appoint as soon as possible one person in each of five regions—North West Thames, North East Thames, South Western, Trent and Mersey—to assist in the NHS management executive monitoring of NHS trusts' performance of their financial duties. The five host regional health authorities have each been asked to provide accommodation for the monitoring officer. The Department has allocated £50,000 for 1991–92 as a contribution to the costs of each of the five centres and this sum will be kept under review in future years.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what status the five regional monitoring centres of NHS trusts will enjoy; whether staff will be employed on NHS pay and conditions of employment; to whom the centres will report; with what frequency they will report; whether such reports will be made public; what sanctions centres possess if any trust refuses to provide information; and if he will make a statement.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on trends in tobacco consumption in those European countries where tobacco advertising has been banned.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A report published by the New Zealand Toxic Substances Board in May 1989 summarised tobacco consumption trends in 33 developed countries.

  A table in the report contains the following information on those European countries with complete tobacco advertising bans:

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The five local monitoring officers will be employed on NHS terms and conditions and they will report directly to the NHS management executive—NHSME—which will direct their day-to-day work. They will not be required to produce formal reports: they will simply be part of the financial monitoring arrangements for trusts set up by the NHSME. Under paragraph 8 of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 all NHS trusts are required to furnish such information as I may require.

  Fluoridation
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a decision will be made on the fluoridation of the water supply to Greater Manchester and Lancashire.

  Mr. Dorrell
  North West Water commissioned a study into the design and costings for a standard fluoridation plant. The report is expected by the end of September 1991. The local health authorities believe that North West Water will then have all the technical information it requires to decide whether it is technically able to accede to the health authorities' requests to supply fluoridated water to the region.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district health authorities have made applications to their local water authorities for fluoridation of the water supply in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The following district health authorities asked water undertakers to supply fluoridated water:

  Stockport

  Bolton

  Wigan

  559

  Oldham

  Tameside and Glossop

  Rochdale

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble

  Salford

  Trafford

  Bury

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  Lancaster

  Chorley and South Ribble

  Preston

  North Manchester

  Central Manchester

  South Manchester

  North Staffordshire

  Macclesfield

  South Cumbria

  East Cumbria

  All the requests were made in 1988.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which water authorities have fluoridated their water supply in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The following water authorities have fluoridated water supplies since 1985:

  Anglian Water Services Limited

  North West Water Limited

  Northumbrian Water Limited

  Severn Trent Water Limited

  Thames Water Utilities Limited

  Colne Valley Water Company

  East Worcestershire Water Company

  Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company

  South Staffordshire Water Company

  Yorkshire Water which was supplying fluoridated water in 1985 stopped doing so with effect from 31 October 1989.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual charge for fluoridation of the water supply charged by each water authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for local negotiation and information is not held centrally.

  Dental Charges
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of people annually who are eligible for a reduction in dental charges or exempt from dental charges who do not claim.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We estimate that some 41 per cent. of patients are entitled to free NHS dental treatment. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who do not claim.

  Ambulance Personnel (Misconduct)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many charges against ambulance personnel were made in each division in England and Wales for(a) general misconduct and (b) gross misconduct for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Transfusion Aids
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations the Minister for Health has received from Graham L. Ross about transfusion aids legislation; what reply is being sent; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.
  560
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have placed in the Library a copy of an official reply which has been sent to Mr. Graham Ross of J. Keith Park and Co.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons Reduction
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on(a) NATO strategy and (b) the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent of future reductions in the global total of nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO is already in the process of reviewing and adapting its strategy to reflect the changed security environment. The communiqué issued following the meeting of its defence planning committee and nuclear planning group in Brussels on 28–29 May looked forward to the approval of a new alliance strategic concept later this year. It also reaffirmed alliance policy of seeking the lowest level of nuclear weapons commensurate with alliance security requirements.

  Likewise, the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent has always been the minimum necessary to deter aggression and guarantee our security, and is not based on any numerical correlation with the nuclear arsenals of others. However, if, in time, the United States and Soviet strategic arsenals were further reduced substantially, and if there had been no significant improvements in defensive capabilities, we would consider how best to contribute to the arms control process in the light of the changed circumstances.

  Military Exhibitions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his policy to publish the notified list of expected attenders at military equipment and armaments exhibitions.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Royal Institute of International Affairs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of his speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 19 June in the Library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Copies of my right hon. Friend's speech have been placed in the Library.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of the Defence Export Services Organisation in Kuwait; and what is its planned future role.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our practice to discuss the activities of the Defence Export Services Organisation in particular countries. Its general role will continue to be as set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 19 March,Official Report, column 91.

  HOTOL Engine
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the declassification of the details of the horizontal take-off and landing launcher engine.
  561
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the reason for the declassification of the design of engines of the horizontal take-off and landing space plane.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  When the order prohibiting publication of the relevant patent applications was last reviewed, it was considered that technological advances had reduced the sensitivity of the detailed specifications sufficiently to allow them to be released.

  Aberporth Firing Range
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1987 Aberporth firing range has been used for test firings of missiles intended for use in the Chilean project RAYO.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Aberporth range is operated by the Defence Research Agency and questions concerning its day-to-day usage fall to the chief executive under the terms of his framework document. I have, therefore, asked him to reply.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 147, when he expects to receive the report of the preliminary inspection of Samarra for chemical weapons under Security Council resolution 667.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The full inspection reports of the United Nations special commission under United Nations Security Council resolution 687 are confidential to the special commission. The special commission does, however, release information as and when appropriate and a detailed press release on the preliminary inspection of Samarra was issued on 24 June 1991. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Submarines (Clyde)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions he has reached in his consideration of extending the Clyde reporting scheme for submarines to other coastal waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 24 June at column 402 of the Official Report.

  Service Personnel
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to make arrangements for service men and women to take out insurance cover against the risk of injury when on exercise.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is a matter for individual service personnel to decide what levels of private insurance for death and injury they wish to obtain in the light of their own financial circumstances. The services have, however, negotiated with the private insurance sector a number of special arrangements to provide cover at favourable rates of premium. In addition, there are a number of charitable funds to which service personnel may subscribe, which make one-time payments to widows or other dependants on the death of a subscriber. We continue to investigate ways of improving the availability of insurance arrangements to ensure that service personnel can obtain appropriate levels of cover.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the responsibilities of his Department for ensuring that service men and women injured on exercise are eligible for compensation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, all service personnel are eligible for common law compensation for any injury sustained while on duty, or on Crown property, if that injury results from negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence, its servants or agents.

  Any payment of common law compensation would be in addition to the benefits available under the war pension and armed forces pension schemes for an injury which is attributable to service.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the joint commander will present a dispatch on Operation Granby.

  Mr. Tom King
  Air Chief Marshall Sir Patrick Hine's dispatch on Operation Granby will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as a supplement to The London Gazette on 29 June 1991. The Gulf honours list will be announced on the same day.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Productivity
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect a significant rise in output per person employed during the second half of 1991.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it is not the practice to publish forecasts for output per person employed. However, the Government expect some productivity growth in line with the recovery in activity forecast for the second half of the year.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he accept that it is important that the Government should anticipate some increase in output per person employed because it always predates any improvement in the level of unemployment? The last time we had this level of fall, it took 12 months before unemployment stagnated, and four years before it began to fall. Is that what the Government expect this time?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can only quote from the Financial Statement and Budget Report concerning productivity. It states that unit labour cost growth in manufacturing is likely to slow sharply through 1991 and beyond, principally as productivity growth rebounds with the recovery in activity. I hope that is reasonably encouraging.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that during the period of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, labour productivity in manufacturing industry was virtually static? However, during the period of this Government labour productivity increased by 50 per cent.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the 10 years between 1970 and 1980 we were bottom of the table for G7 in manufacturing productivity growth. In the years between 1980 and 1990 we have been top.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I could have sworn that there was a Conservative Government during part of the period from 1970 to 1980. Noble Lords seem to wish to forget about that. However, it is up to them. The noble Lord referred to a recovery of activity in the second half of 1991. Is he aware that the second half of 1991 starts on Monday? Is it the current view of the Government that the recovery of economic activity will start at about that time? I know of no other economic forecaster who remotely believes that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that quote came from the latest government prediction which was
698
made in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. It looked for a recovery in the second half of the year. Whether that starts on 1st July, I should not like to say.
Lord Peston: My Lords, there can be doubt that it starts on 1st July. I wish to make sure that I understood the Answer. The statement that the noble Lord gave us was the one made at the time of the Budget. Is he now telling us that as a result of the Government's experience since the Budget, they have not reformulated their view as to what is likely to happen in 1991?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that we still expect a recovery in the second half of the year.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, given that there is a large balance of payments deficit during the current recession, what does the Minister think will be the source of the rise in output during the second half of the year? Why does he think that it will not result in an even bigger deficit and a return to the recession rather quickly?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the Question refers to output per person. We expect to see that as activity grows it is fairly normal for unit labour cost growth to come down.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the recession has been longer and deeper than the Government's forecast? Does he further agree that it will be even longer and deeper still unless the Government immediately cut interest rates and cut them sharply?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a different Question from the one on the Order Paper. It is a subject for a different Question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware of the recent report that shows that the average working week of 48 hours in this country is considerably in excess of that for similar groups of people in Europe. I speak as one who used to work in engineering, producing goods. Is the Minister aware that history has clearly shown that the longer the working week, the poorer the production per hour? When can we expect our people to have the same privileges and working conditions as their colleagues in Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a matter for negotiation between employers and employees. It is not for the Government to interfere.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that the Secretary of State in another place has already rejected it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that since he mentioned the 1970s, the rise in productivity growth began in 1976 when we had a Labour Government? More to the point, after what he said to us today about productivity growth and unemployment, is it not about time that the Government announced their policy for job creation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are more jobs now than ever before. The best way to produce more jobs is to have better productivity and lower inflation.

Kurdish Refugees
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made towards the return to their homes of the large number of Kurds from Iraq now refugees in Iran.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, good progress has been made. Latest figures suggest that about half of the original 1,200,000 Iraqi refugees who fled to Iran have now returned to Iraq.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his encouraging reply. Can he explain why no safe haven was provided for the Kurdish refugees who went to Iran and whether there are any plans to remedy that state of affairs?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the House will be aware, considerable progress has been made on the humanitarian side for all the Kurds. UN security guards are looking after the whole of the northern area, including the Kurds who went into Turkey or up to the Turkish border, as well as those who went into Iran. The situation is being monitored by the UN security guards. The UN Secretary-General will take account of that in future policy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is still considerable uncertainty about the safety of the Kurds in Iraq itself? Is there any truth in the reports that we have read that a rapid deployment force under the aegis of the United Nations is to be created on the Turkish border with Iraq? If that is the case, I am sure that the whole House would welcome it. Can the Minister say whether there is any prospect of the 1 million Kurds now in Iran returning to their own country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the noble Lord's second point, we seek to encourage the return of all the Kurds to their homes. That is the whole purpose of the humanitarian exercise put forward by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, now followed up by the United Nations.
With regard to security in the area, there are four points: first, the effective UN presence on the ground; secondly, the clear warnings to Iraq that any renewed repression will be met with the severest response; thirdly, a continuing deterrent military presence in the region to back up those warnings; and fourthly, the maintenance of sanctions. We are considering all four points.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as I asked before, is there any truth in the report on BBC radio this morning that it has been agreed that a new rapid deployment force will be established on the Turkish border with Iraq?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I replied to the previous question of the noble Lord in the terms I did because I understand that consultations are still continuing.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is there any news of the situation further south where there is no safe haven for the Shi'ite Moslems? Is there any news of the several hundred thousand people who are apparently in the marshes around Basra and who are under threat from Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's interest. It is however a different question to the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, how much will it cost to look after the Kurds? Some of us believe that Saddam Hussein should bear that cost. However, I understand there is a central fund. What contribution is Belgium making to that central fund?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Security Council resolutions contain provisions for compensation to be paid by Iraq. As regards donations in cash and kind for the displaced people of Iraq that have been made since April 1991, to the best of my knowledge Belgium has not contributed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Kurdish people have been greatly encouraged by the announcement made by the British Prime Minister that no British soldier will be withdrawn from Iraq until peace for the Kurdish people is assured? Does the Minister agree that in this emergency situation there is an urgent need to build decent homes and public buildings in the areas where the Kurds will be living to enable them to construct a nation of their own? Will the United Nations support the British Prime Minister's announcement by not withdrawing any UN soldiers while Britain does not withdraw any of its forces?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the reply I gave to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition when I mentioned the four conditions that we wished to take into consideration. Without the fulfilment of those four conditions, we shall not remove our troops.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, do the Government recognise that the great majority of the Kurds still in Iran are city dwellers? They come mainly from the Kurdish cities of Arbil and Sulaimaniya where Saddam Hussein keeps increasing his security forces. I understand that he has as many as 58,000 of those forces in Sulaimaniya. Is it not therefore obvious that the Kurds who do not wish to go to the safe haven or to the area controlled by the Kurdistan Front will not return to their cities until Saddam's security forces return to Baghdad?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the UN security guards are in place precisely to monitor situations such as the one the noble Lord describes. The UN security guards will monitor the security situation and report to the Secretary-General any violations of Security Council Resolution 688.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what is the latest news of the build-up of the UN security guards? What is the target figure that it is hoped they will reach? How many security guards are now in place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the exact figure at the present time, but in the near future the UN will have about 500 security guards in place.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, there has been worrying news as regards the condition of Kurdish child refugees. Has the Minister any information about the welfare of those children and whether the organisations who seek to support them are receiving sufficient funds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as a House we should all compliment the non-governmental organisations on the work they are doing with families and children. I am happy to report that Britain is the largest single donor to the Gulf appeal of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, on the Iraqi side of the frontier will the Government do something to support and back the efforts of the Swiss Red Cross which I understand has a distribution point at a place named Shaqlawa?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, we are the largest contributor to the appeal of the ICRC. We are the second largest donor in cash and kind to displayed people in Iraq after America. We are in front of Japan, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Australia and France. That is a record to be proud of.

Treaty of Rome and Single European Act
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will confirm that the text of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, as set out in Cm 455 of 1988 has been approved as authentic by the European Commission; and, if not, whether they will make available to members of the House the two official volumes of the Commission's version.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, the original authentic text of the Treaty of Rome was published in the Official Journal in 1957. Her Majesty's Stationery Office has published a series of abridged editions of it with subsequent amendments. The two volumes referred to by the noble Lord were published in 1987 by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities and contain the amended text of the treaty incorporating the Single European Act. Much related material is also included. I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that there is now a copy of this version in the Library. HMSO reproduced this text, minus the supplementary material, in 1988 as Cm 455. It required no separate authentication by the European Commission.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his most courteous and prompt
702
responses to my verbal approaches. Why is it that the amended Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act of 1986, was published in the Official Journal only in French? Why was no official version available at that time in the English language, as is customary? Does the Minister agree that so far—apart from the two volume official version of the Commission's Treaty of Rome of 1979 which has just been placed in the Library—this House and another place have not been provided with an authenticated copy of the original Treaty of Rome which the intergovernmental conference that is now taking place seeks to amend? Does not the Minister agree that it is most desirable that the confusion that has hitherto existed about the authenticated text be cleared up as quickly as possible so that the British people may know exactly where they stand in regard to the proposed amendments to the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have an apology to make to the noble Lord. I am afraid that my letter was not fully authentic when it referred to the publication of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 in French alone. It was published in the then four official languages of French, Dutch, German and Italian. As regards the noble Lord's second point, Cm 455 is a copy of the two volume edition to which the noble Lord refers. Two volumes are required as they contain many related documents, including all the documents supporting the applications for accession to the Treaty of Rome by the various countries which joined the EC at a later date.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House why the two volume text is not available in the Printed Paper Office? What is the reason for the discrepancy between the EC text and Cm 455? Who decides the level of expense that may be incurred in making official government publications available in the Printed Paper Office?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the two volume edition costs £80. Decisions on whether any paper is too expensive to be stocked by the Printed Paper Office are taken in the normal course of events by the senior clerk of the Printed Paper Office who operates within guidelines set by the Administration Committee. In contentious cases the decision is referred to the Clerk of the Parliaments. I am not aware of any discrepancy between the two volume edition and Cm 455. However, the two volume edition contains a lot of material related to the treaty, but far more than the text of the treaty.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the extremely important points made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington are of great interest not only to this House but also to the general public? The points my noble friend has raised could have a great effect upon the future of this country. Therefore, should not this matter be examined extremely seriously?
Lord Waddington: I am sorry, my Lords, but I missed the last sentence of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I asked whether the noble Lord agrees that the points raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington are worthy of thorough examination in the interests not merely of this House but of the entire British people.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord. The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, are very important indeed. However, I hope that I have reassured the House in pointing out that the two-volume edition costs £80 but that there is available the HMSO edition which costs only £13.30. The latter is a copy of the relevant parts of the two-volume edition.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, in view of the high level of interest shown by your Lordships in European affairs, would it not be desirable that copies of the consolidated edition should be freely available to Members of this House? I should have thought that one copy only shared among possibly 500 or more Members might be thought to be a rather thin supply. Does my noble friend also agree that the second volume contains important protocols, some of which relate to dependencies of the British Crown?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have already made clear that ultimately decisions on these matters are for the Clerk of the Parliaments. However, one has to bear cost in mind and one has to bear in mind that Cm 455 was produced for the specific purpose of being of assistance to Members of both Houses of Parliament. If I am correct in saying that it reproduces accurately the texts as they appear in the two-volume edition, there is a fairly strong argument for bearing in mind that Cm 455 costs £13.30 and the two-volume edition costs £80.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have got myself a little lost in listening to all of this, but I am not a detailed reader of the Act and therefore it is all rather academic. However, I believe that noble Lords would like an assurance. When we deal with Acts of Parliament we are expected to deal with the authentic document. Sometimes when someone gets it wrong he is told that he has not used the right wording. Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House telling us that regarding European Acts there is no shadow of doubt in his mind that the shorter versions are perfectly satisfactory when it comes to dealing with all the statutory matters before us? That is the Question which my noble friend has raised and we should like an assurance that there is no problem whatever.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have no reason whatever to believe that they are not wholly satisfactory.
I did not answer a question which was posed by a noble Lord a short time ago and I shall do so now. There is no reason why the Commission should go through some procedure in order to mark Cm 455 as authentic. I am not sure what mechanism could be used to bring that about. We are at liberty, for our own convenience, to reproduce documents produced
704
by the Commission. That is what we have done in this particular case for the convenience of Members of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for correcting the contents of the letter which he was kind enough to address to me on 25th June. Can he give an assurance, particularly in the light of the remarks that have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that Cm 455 contains the entire text in the English language of both volumes of the authenticated treaty? If that is not the case, will the noble Lord explain why, in his letter of 25th June, he indicated that Cm 455 was among the abridged versions of the original treaty? Will the noble Lord agree that the consideration of these vital matters, which are of great constitutional importance to the United Kingdom, is probably worth the expenditure of £80 for those of our legislators who are required to consider these important matters in the national interest?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure that I can reassure the noble Lord on the matters which he has raised. Cm 445 contains all the treaties and the protocols. There is also an abridged version of the two-volume text which does not include most of the annexes, protocols and other associated texts which appear in the two-volume edition. I say again that the two-volume edition contains a great deal more than the EC treaty and the Single European Act. The first volume contains all the Community treaties and protocols, and numerous resolutions and declarations in addition. The second volume contains the documents concerning the accession to the Community of Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Lloyd's: Trading Liability
3.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to introduce limited liability for members of Lloyd's.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, Lloyd's is a society of sole traders regulated by the Council of Lloyd's under the Lloyd's Act 1982, and any question of limited liability would be a matter for Lloyd's itself in the first instance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that Answer and delighted to welcome him answering DTI questions. I had no idea that a Scottish law officer of the Crown was such an expert on these matters. Is that perhaps because he is the only Minister of the Crown who is not a member of Lloyd's? I ask that question as a seeker after truth because the Government have refused to answer a Written Question of mine specifying which Ministers of the Crown in this House are members of Lloyd's.
Leaving that aside—and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is a great expert on these matters

705
—does he not agree that something has gone rather badly wrong with the Lloyd's market? Does he accept that many people who are otherwise wholly innocent and have no involvement in the management of Lloyd's find themselves suffering due to the incompetence not only of underwriters but also of regulation? Is it not time that the Government had a close look at the Lloyd's insurance market, which is very valuable to this country, made sure that it introduces limited liability, and comes under the Financial Services Act?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it may be some small consolation to those of my colleagues who are members of Lloyd's that they do not have to answer a Question on this matter and that it is left to me—I am not a member of Lloyd's—to do so.
As I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, Lloyd's itself has established a task-force, set up by its council, to examine the capital base of the Lloyd's market. That exercise was begun in January and it is my understanding that it is anticipated that it will take until the end of the year to conclude that examination. In those circumstances it would be wholly premature to intervene in any way while Lloyd's is undertaking that careful consideration of the capital base of the market.
It will be appreciated that as recently as 1986 a committee of inquiry was established under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Neill. Given that investigation, it seems to me that no further inquiry is required.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, in declaring myself a Lloyd's name, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend whether he agrees that, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, Lloyd's has historically made substantial foreign earnings for the balance of payments. Does he agree that we should take every opportunity to restore confidence to the insurance market, even if that means further consultations with the Inland Revenue and other interested parties?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, of course the Government fully recognise the contribution which has been made by Lloyd's and by the rest of our insurance industry to the United Kingdom's invisible earnings. Lloyd's is both a unique and an important institution. I am, of course, aware that suggestions have been put forward by Lloyd's that arrangements for new tax reliefs might be brought forward on its behalf. However, as the Financial Secretary explained in another place, the Government saw serious difficulties in the proposals and were not persuaded that they would solve Lloyd's longer term problems.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord said, it is clear that it is for Lloyd's itself to put its own house in order. Nonetheless, will he not accept, as was implied by the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that the insurance sector is a very important part of the British economy? It was initiated over two centuries ago and Lloyd's has been right at the centre of that? Is this not therefore a
706
matter of national importance and should the Government not give very close consideration to the future of that important institution?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can only reiterate that Lloyd's itself has decided to set up a task force to look at its accountable base. Of course, the value of the Lloyd's market is appreciated and that has been demonstrated, as the noble Lord knows. In supporting the United Kingdom insurance industry, we have sought to press for further liberalisation of insurance markets throughout Europe. It is well recognised how important it is, but the Government believe that Lloyd's should be left to see how it can best reorganise its affairs, if it so desires.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that some of the devaluation of the confidence in and reputation of Lloyd's, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, has been generated by a considerable amount of hype and media coverage and perhaps by the views and opinions of some noble Lords opposite and their party? Does my noble and learned friend agree that Lloyd's is best able to get its own house in order when mistakes have been made so that lessons can be learnt and it can once again render a great contribution to our invisible exports, as it has done in the past?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I certainly recognise that point. If my noble friend knows what the Opposition's policy on Lloyd's is, I should be grateful if he would inform me. If he cares to read Commons Hansard for last week and the week before, he will find that two wholly conflicting views are expressed.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.31 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I should like to draw special attention to the first item in the report on time-limited debates. Difficulties have arisen of particular concern to Opposition spokesmen winding up before the Minister replies to the debate. Sometimes they find themselves with less time than the limit set and sometimes with time to spare. When they have less time, it means that previous speakers have exceeded their limit. The Committee wishes to underline the point that is frequently made by the Chief Whip in announcing the time limit. When, for example, a 10-minute guideline is set, the time is up as soon as the figure "10" appears on the clock. I think that many of your Lordships believe that the figure is a warning that they should draw to a conclusion and they perhaps run on until the figure "II" turns up, but, if that happens, they have exceeded their time by one minute.
As regards Opposition spokesmen who find that they have more than the allotted time and can still leave the Government spokesman with his 20 or 25

707
minutes to wind up, the Committee recommends some flexibility. However, it stresses that the spirit of time-limited debates should always be respected and, in any case, the 15-minute guideline for all debates that is given in the Companion should never be exceeded.
Perhaps I may briefly mention two other points in the report which are of some importance. First, the Committee gave careful consideration to the matter of instructions to extend the scope of a Bill which the Companion suggests are no longer in use. The Committee confirmed that view. It considered that they were undesirable and could be used to undermine the rules on the relevance of amendments. Secondly, with reference to the advice given in its first report—that noble Lords should take care to avoid giving the impression that they represent outside interests in the Chamber—that should in no way restrain your Lordships from declaring any relevant interests. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the Report:
ORDERED TO REPORT:—
TIME-LIMITED DEBATES
Winding-up Speeches
1. The Companion (p.86) stipulates the time allocated to the mover of a motion in a time-limited debate and the time when the Minister replying should rise. It explains that the remaining time is divided equally among the other Lords on the speakers' list. A Government whip announces a guideline for the length of these speeches, and explains that any Lord who breaches the guideline does so at the expense of subsequent speakers. Such arrangements apply equally to Short Debates and to motions to which a time limit has been applied.
2. On occasions, speakers exceed the guideline to the extent that those due to speak immediately before the Minister, the opposition front bench spokesmen, find themselves with almost no time left. The House, including whips of all parties, should make clear to a speaker exceeding the guideline that he should conclude swiftly.
3. On other occasions, speakers do not use up all of the time allocated. There has been confusion whether the opposition front bench spokesmen can extend their speeches into any spare time which has accumulated before the Minister rises, or whether the limit should be strictly applied in all cases. The limit remains a guideline which relies on the discretion of peers for its application. Opposition spokesmen speaking towards the end of a debate may sometimes find there is time for longer speeches before the Minister rises. Such speeches are not out of order, but it is desirable that the spirit of time-limited debates should be observed by all speakers. All speakers apart from the mover and the Minister in a time-limited debate are subject to the 15 minute maximum guideline for speeches given in the Companion (p.39).
Standing Order 35
4. Time-limited debates, with the limit set by motion in the House, are now an established feature of the House's proceedings. But at present, Standing Order 35 and the rules for the conduct of Short Debates have to be applied by business motion. The Committee proposes that Standing Order 35 should be amended to embrace all time-limited debates as follows:
"(1) If a Short Debate or a time-limited debate is continuing at the end of the time allotted to it, the Clerk at the Table shall rise and thereupon the Lord Speaker shall ask the mover whether or not he wishes to withdraw his Motion. If the mover does not ask leave to withdraw, or if leave to withdraw is refused, the Lord Speaker shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16, put the Question forthwith.
708
(2) If an amendment is moved to a Motion which is the subject of a Short Debate or a time-limited debate, paragraph (1) shall have effect in relation to the amendment in like manner as it has in relation to the original Motion."
The Committee also considers that when the Companion is next revised, the rules for the conduct of Short Debates (pp 223–224) should be re-drafted to apply to all time-limited debates. The Companion should also make clear that the length of time available to the mover of the motion and the Minister in a 2 hour or 3 hour debate is the same as in a 21 hour debate; and that such limits in 4 hour debates are the same as for 5 hour debates.
INSTRUCTIONS TO EXTEND THE SCOPE OF BILLS
5. Instructions to Committees can be either mandatory or permissive. Mandatory instructions are now regularly tabled to require Committees of the whole House to consider bills in a certain order. Permissive instructions are most commonly used in private legislation, when Select Committees are instructed to give special consideration to particular issues. Such instructions usually occur two or three times a session. It is considered undesirable to give mandatory instructions to Select Committees, since that would pre-empt their consideration of the issue. In the case of public legislation, permissive instructions confer on a Committee authority to do something which, without the instruction, they would have no power to do; for example, to divide a bill into two bills, to consolidate two bills into one, or to extend the scope of a bill.
6. The last occasion when a permissive instruction to extend the scope of a public bill was passed in the House of Lords was in 1899. In 1906 such an instruction was moved, but the motion was withdraw. No similar instruction was tabled in the House until April 1991. A motion to extend the scope of the War Crimes Bill was tabled, but it was not moved because the bill was refused a second reading. The Companion suggests that the procedure has fallen into desuetude, but the precedents continue to be listed in Erskine May.
7. The Committee has examined the history of permissive instructions in the House of Lords, and the arguments for and against their continuing use. The purpose of an instruction to extend the scope of a bill is to allow the House to consider amendments to a particular bill which would, without the instruction, not to be relevant to the bill. Amendments to public bills are inadmissible if they are not relevant to the subject matter of a bill (Companion, p.98). The reason for restricting amendments in this way is that Parliament has an interest and a duty to legislate in a coherent manner and also to preserve orderly debate. It would not be in the interest of the House if amendments which were not relevant to a bill were tabled and discussed. Such amendments would take valuable time and, if passed, might create a situation where the Statute Book became increasingly illogical. A bill which is introduced into Parliament to achieve a particular purpose should remain for that purpose, and not be used as a vehicle for some other purpose. The Committee considers that instructions to extend the scope of bills are an undesirable challenge to the requirement that amendments must be relevant. Such an instruction could be seized upon as a means to circumvent advice that an amendment was not relevant. The Committee concludes that instructions to extend the scope of bills are undesirable.
WEARING OF ROBES BY BISHOPS IN DIVISION LOBBY
8. The Committee has considered the question of whether bishops should be obliged to wear robes in the division lobby as well as in the Chamber. It will report further when it has had the benefit of advice from the bishops.
PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS
9. The Committee's First Report (Session 1990–91) confirmed that "proceedings on Private Notice Questions should follow the rules for Starred Questions". One difficulty with such a practice is that in certain circumstances, this may restrict proceedings more than the House would wish. The Committee therefore suggests that once a Private Notice Question has been accepted as of sufficient urgency to require an answer, the Leader of the House should consider whether the Government should make a statement to the House, rather than answer a Private Notice Question. Circumstances when a statement would be more appropriate include when a long answer was required, when the

709
Lord answering was the responsible Minister, or when the House of Commons was not sitting.
SPEECHES ON BEHALF OF OUTSIDE INTERESTS
10. The Committee's First Report (Session 1990–91) reiterated the Companion guidance that Lords speak only on behalf of themselves:
"When speaking in the House, Lords may indicate that an outside body agrees with the substance of the views that they are expressing; but they speak for themselves and not on behalf of outside interests."
The Committee concluded that "Lords should therefore take care to avoid the impression that they are representing outside interests in the Chamber." It wishes to make clear that this guidance should in no way prejudice the requirement that Lords declare their interests. Whilst Lords should make it clear that they are speaking on their own behalf, this should not restrain Lords from declaring any relevant interests to the House.
INDUCTION COURSE FOR PEERS
11. The Committee recommends an induction course to help new peers to learn about the House and its procedures. The first course should be an experiment, and should take place in the autumn.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
12. The terms of reference of the Committee of Selection under Standing Order 61 limit its powers to the choice of members of Select Committees and the panel of Deputy Chairmen. The Committee recommends that these terms of reference should be extended to allow the Committee to choose Lords for bodies other than Select Committees. It accordingly recommends the following addition to Standing Order 61:
"(5A) The Committee of Selection shall also have power to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form any other body, not being a Select Committee, referred to it by the Chairman of Committees."
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Bill
3.34 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I hope to be permitted to make one or two brief observations. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, cannot be here and wishes to express his regret.
The Bill obtained its Second Reading on 2nd May last and has not occupied any of the time of your Lordships' House since that date. The reason why no amendments were put down was not lack of interest or a lack of ideas as to ways in which the Bill might be improved or extended but solely because the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, beseeched us, in advising us what the Bill contained, that we should if possible allow it to go forward without delay and not go back to the House of Commons as it is already long overdue. That is what happened, so the Bill can now go straight from your Lordships' House for Royal Assent.
The Bill becomes operative in two months' time. It has been on its way here for years. It left the Farm Animal Welfare Council as long ago as 1988 and the recommendations that it contains have gone unreformed ever since. It is high time that the new conditions regarding the training, employment and supervision of the staff of slaughterhouses were
710
brought into operation. Those noble Lords who read the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will have been shocked to read of some of the malpractices that have crept into methods at slaughterhouses. They are abhorrent and should be stopped. The noble Lord gave us the example of the metal discs in the ears of cattle which are often ripped out of the ear before the animal goes forward for execution. That puts the animal in serious discomfort and pain on its way to slaughter and should be stopped.
In addition, we are probably less well-informed than we should be as to the kind of people who are employed in slaughterhouses. It is not a prestige occupation and we probably do not pay enough attention to it. We are all responsible for it and to a large extent we probably are concerned with what they do. The conditions that are now to be imposed are therefore long overdue. The Bill relates to the training and supervision of slaughtermen, to codes of practice, and so on, so I hope that we shall send forward the Bill promptly.
Some of my cynical friends ask, "Where does the welfare of animals at slaughter come in? What kind of welfare do you wish to provide for an animal on its way to slaughter?". I reply by giving a human parallel, saying that we all like to think of our welfare at the point of death. The principle is exactly the same. We would not like to be ill-treated however near to death we were. It would only add to the misery of the final tragedy. Our humane instincts extend that consideration to animals.
Noble Lords will welcome the Bill. The supervision under the Bill may not be adequate because so much can happen at great speed in slaughterhouses today. Tens of thousands of sheep go through slaughterhouses in a day. It is a mechanised operation and things can happen which many people deplore. The Bill is just a thought for the welfare of animals for slaughter and in passing it we shall probably improve the final moments, if no more, of the existence of animals which have to undergo the final solution in the interests of mankind.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may add that I wonder whether this situation will go on for ever. Will humankind slaughter animals by the million every day in order to feed man? Is there no alternative in sight? Will it extend and increase with the population? If so, the world will have as one of its biggest industries the

711
slaughter of animals for human consumption. The nobility of the human race deserves better. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, perhaps I may simply say that animal welfare is a matter that we take very seriously indeed. I submit that our record is a creditable one. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for bringing this short Bill before the House. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for gallantly picking up the threads of this last round. I look forward to introducing further provisions for the welfare of animals when time permits.
On Question, Bill passed.

British Technology Group Bill
3.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Vesting of property etc. of NRDC and NEB in a successor company]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("(1A) No order under subsection (1) above shall be made until the Secretary of State has—

(a) by order nominated the successor company; and

(b) made an order under subsection (1B) below.

(1B) The Secretary of State may by order sell or transfer all or any of the securities of the successor company that he or the Treasury may hold to third parties provided that he has laid before Parliament a statement announcing—

(a) the identities of the third parties concerned, and

(b) the consideration for the sale or transfer,

before such an order is made.").
The noble Lord said: First, I must thank the Minister and say how grateful we are that he has succeeded in the attempt that he promised at Second Reading in producing the articles of association of the successor company. We shall have more to say about that as our debates go forward in Committee. I believe that the noble Lord has honoured not an undertaking but nevertheless a promise to do his very best. He has done his very best and I am sure that the Committee will be extremely grateful to him for having achieved it.
Amendment No. 1 is designed to ensure that the British Technology Group as it stands at present does not go into the hands of what I would call undesirable owners without Parliament being informed. Perhaps I may take the Committee through the provisions of the amendment.
The order under subsection (1), mentioned in the first line of the amendment, is the vesting order which the Secretary of State may make to vest the property of NRDC and NEB in a successor company. The provision under paragraph (a) of the amendment is a condition precedent to that order being made, as is paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) should not cause any great difficulty for the Government. It says that we should know the successor company into which the property of BTG—if I may so refer to it, and I shall continue to refer to it as such throughout the Committee stage—is to be vested.
The important point comes under subsection (1B) of the amendment which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order sell or transfer all or any of the securities of the successor company that he or the Treasury may hold to third parties provided"—
at this point I introduce two more conditions precedent—that we know to whom the company will be sold, how much will be paid for it and on what conditions the transfer of securities will be made. Until those matters are known and laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State, according to my amendment, would not be able to make the order to sell and therefore would not be able to make the order to vest.
We suggest in Amendment No. 1 that, before the Secretary of State makes the vesting order, Parliament should be told who will buy the property and whether it is a consortium of people, institutions, banks, or whatever it might be, together with the consideration price and other conditions.
I do not have to tell Members of the Committee—we had a lengthy discussion of this matter at Second Reading—that BTG is quite different from other companies that have been privatised. Its assets are intellectual property and people —approximately 190 people of great skill. It is not a company which will be floated in the way that British Gas, British Steel or other privatised companies were floated. It will be sold to a consortium on a private basis. In those circumstances, I believe that Parliament ought to know before the vesting order is made who are those people, what the price is and what will be the effect of the sale. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I take an early opportunity to explain what action the Government have taken since the Second Reading on 3rd June. During the earlier stages of the Bill the Government made clear that they would listen carefully to all the views and representations expressed in this Chamber, in another place and outside Parliament.
During our debate at Second Reading, as the noble Lord reminded us, I undertook to try if possible to ensure that the draft articles of association were made available to this Chamber while the Bill was before it. I am therefore pleased to be able to report that draft articles of association for the successor company to the British Technology Group were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on Friday 21st June. Additional copies are available in the Printed Paper Office and the Vote Office. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his words of appreciation of the fact that these articles have now been laid before the Chamber.

713
The principal feature of the draft articles is a provision for a government special share which will protect certain provisions in the articles. The two key provisions protected by the special share are in Article 42—a 15 per cent. limit on control by any one shareholder of voting rights in the privatised company (for practical purposes, a 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholdings)—and in Article 12 a restriction on substantial disposals of assets without the consent of the special shareholder. Those provisions are in keeping with precedent in previous privatisations.
The special share would last for up to five years. In the Government's view that would be sufficient to enable BTG to adjust to life in the private sector. It is also in line with precedent. In addition, Article 79 contains a third provision for one director of the company to be appointed by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the universities of the United Kingdom in consultation with the Committee of Directors and Principals of the polytechnics. That right will not be protected by the special share, for reasons which I shall outline in a moment. The safeguards are together designed to preserve BTG's independence and integrity in dealing with all its customers and to help the continuation of BTG's traditional technology transfer activities.
The 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholdings in Article 42 clearly means that no one buyer will be able to purchase BTG outright or achieve a controlling interest. It signals that the Government will not be interested in receiving bids from that type of investor. It means that BTG will therefore be sold to a number of investors with, in effect, a balance of power between their various interests. That provision in the articles should allay the concerns that have been expressed about BTG being purchased by a single industrial or commercial company with an interest in the success or failure of particular technologies.
The prohibition on substantial disposals of assets without the special shareholder's consent in Article 12 goes hand in hand with our aim to see BTG's technology transfer activities continue. Clearly, a sale to a consortium which takes a long-term view of BTG is the most practical step that we can take to help the continuation of the business. In addition, Article 12 provides for any disposal of the whole or a material part of the assets of the privatised company to be subject to the consent of the special shareholder. A material part of the assets is defined in Article 12. It means either assets which represent 25 per cent. or more of the company's net asset value or assets to which 25 per cent. of average income is attributable.
The Government have included Article 79 giving the CVCP the right to appoint a director in recognition of the important part that the academic sector has played in BTG's business and will surely play in its future. The academic sector accounts for around a half of BTG's new business and is thus its largest inventive source. We believe that any new buyers will want to continue to work closely with such an important source of business. There is no reason why there could not be more than one director if the new owners so decide.
714
The 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholdings follow the precedents of other privatisations. But in the circumstances of this privatisation it is not necessarily intended to be absolutely rigid. With only a small number of shareholders it may be possible for the make-up of individual shareholdings to include one or more somewhat above 15 per cent., yet without control of the company passing to any one shareholder. Thus, while 15 per cent. will be our bench-mark, we will be prepared to consider possible ownership structures involving higher shareholdings. Each will be considered on its merits, taking into account the preservation of BTG's independence, the determination to continue BTG's activities and of course the price offered.
The flexibility to allow shareholdings above 15 per cent. is provided by the power to change the articles, a power which has been available in previous privatisations. The limit on a shareholding can be amended through a special resolution of the company but only with the agreement of the special shareholder.
The provision of the universities appointed director is not protected by the special share. Let me explain why. First, noble Lords will know that we must always be mindful of our position on barriers to takeovers within the European Community. We wish to see such barriers removed wherever possible. Unequal voting rights, of which special shares are an example, are regarded as constituting one such barrier. In the context of the European Community 5th Directive on company law, where there is a proposal to prohibit unequal voting rights, a derogation is being proposed from this principle which would allow public sector businesses to make the transition to the private sector.
We therefore believe that we can justify a special share which is time-limited and restricts overall control and disposals of assets under such a derogation. We do not believe, important though it is to represent the universities, that we can justify using a special share to entrench particular interests on the board of a privatised company.
In conclusion, we believe that the special share provisions we have proposed genuinely meet the concerns that have been expressed inside and outside Parliament. The special share achieves a fair balance. It will help attain the objective we have always had of providing a good prospect for the continuation of BTG's technology transfer activitites. But at the same time we do not want to fetter and constrain any new owners in a way which makes it impossible for them to take commercial decisions by having to look over their shoulders for Government approval. We do not want to deter purchasers from coming forward by imposing unrealistic constraints on the ownership of the new business.
The Government firmly believe that the British Technology Group belongs in the private sector. BTG's own chairman, board and management agree and support privatisation as the best route for future expansion and success. BTG has sent information to all its customers—research organisations, universities and industries in the United Kingdom and overseas

715
—informing them of the privatisation. The overwhelming majority of replies expressed support for the principle of privatisation. We all want to see BTG continue to develop and exploit the results of academic research as a successful commercial organisation in the private sector. We believe that BTG is on course for that target.
Perhaps I may turn to the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene. If the noble Lord agrees, before he replies, would it be wise at this point to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who wishes to speak on the amendment?
Lord Reay: I am in the hands of the Committee. It is a sensible proposal.
Lord Meston: I am conscious of the fact that to a large extent the Minister has taken the wind out of my sails. The difficulty with the Bill hitherto has been that we have had just bare bones. As drafted, it does little more than is necessary to transfer the business of BTG to an unknown company on an unknown date. Until last week, the Government have added little except the rhetoric of privatisation. We are grateful for what the Minister indicated today. I hope that what he indicated is not cast in concrete because refinements may be necessary at the Report stage. Indeed I hope that the Government—they have been at some pains to stress their open mind throughout the passage of the Bill—will retain an open mind when we consider the detail of the draft proposed articles. I do not wish to add anything further at this stage.
Lord Morris: I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for enlightening us. I cannot complain that he has taken the wind from my sails; there was none in my sails to start with. He has put wind into my sails. I am worried by what he said. He informed the House that Her Majesty's Government were seeking to give comfort to us with the Government's special share in BTG. He stated that we should derive great comfort from the fact that any substantial disposal of assets could not possibly come about without the approval of the special shareholder.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made absolutely clear, the company will have assets which are not fixed or currency assets of a disposable quality. The real net worth of a company is in the people who work for it. I do not believe that the Minister's words give comfort. If the real net wealth of a company lies in the skill, experience and knowledge of those who work for it and that company moves elsewhere, it will wither on the vine. If one considers the position carefully, I do not believe that the statement is as much comfort as my noble friend suggests.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have done my best, as I always do, to generate some enthusiasm for the measure, but I must tell my noble friend that so far I have failed. Nor have I encountered a great deal of enthusiasm in others.
I wish to ask the Minister one question at this stage which arises from his remarks. He referred to a
716
balance of power between their various interests—that is, between the interests of the new owners. I cannot help feeling that it is easier to talk of such a balance of power than to achieve or maintain it. I hope that before we pass from the subject, my noble friend will find it possible to make a few more remarks to enlighten us.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may intervene to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for what he said. I wish to come back to the terms of my amendment. The Minister made a general statement about his approach. My amendment specifically addresses the point for which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, seeks an answer. How does one achieve a balance of power? If there is such a thing, is it not proper that Parliament should be told what that balance of power is, before the Secretary of State makes an order? That is the point of the amendment.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I congratulate the Minister on fulfilling the promise that he made on Second Reading to bend over backwards in order to provide us with the memorandum and articles of association in time for our debate today. It is pleasant to see that he has kept his word which, I am sure, was the result of a great deal of hard work.
I am dubious about one aspect of the golden share provision. In this Chamber only last week the Government excused themselves from applying their rights under a golden share provision on the ground that there was an undertaking not to exercise their rights in a managerial context. Therefore, to some extent, I have doubts about the full provisions of the golden share idea.
I have two drafting points to make. They arise out of legal doctrines about which I am not an expert but about which I have heard sufficient to beware. The first relates to the exclusio alterius rule whereby, if one appends illustrations of a general term—for instance, any intellectual property—and then proceeds to list a number of such illustrations, one cannot thereafter argue that an item not on the list was covered by the generality. That is treacherous countryside which I do not pretend fully to understand. The remedy is usually to include in context some provision such as, "without prejudice to the generality of". That device is used at page 5 of the memorandum and articles of association where paragraph (T) states:
"To enter into any guarantee"—
that makes the provision general—
"contract of indemnity or suretyship and in particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing)".
There is the avoidance of the exclusio alterius rule used at one point in the memorandum and articles of association. I should like the Minister to undertake to look at its applicability to the earlier illustration I gave. It is purely a drafting point. That is all I wish to say at this stage in giving general support to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Viscount Caldecote: Can my noble friend make clear to the Committee whether the memorandum and

717
articles of association are to be finalised before the Bill is passed so that we may know precisely the form of that document, or will it still be in draft form?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may intervene again; I apologise to the Committee if I do so too often. I wish to direct the Committee's attention to my amendment. I understand that the Minister has made a general statement about the Bill. When dealing with subsequent amendments we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss the status of the special share and the articles of association and whether they will be final by the time the Bill leaves this Chamber. However, the Committee is currently addressing itself to Amendment No. 1 which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, seeks to establish the balance of power. If the Minister says that there is to be a balance of power, Parliament should be told what the shareholding and the price is to be and how the whole deal is to take shape before the vesting order is made. That is the point of my amendment, and I should be grateful if the Committee would address itself to that point.
Lord Reay: The noble Lord has taken three opportunities to plug his amendment. He is right in saying that Members of the Committee have made general remarks in reply to my opening statement. That is understandable in view of the nature of that statement. They have also raised questions with which we can deal during the course of our debate.
Perhaps I may continue on the specific topic of the amendment. The amendment is technically flawed. However, I recognise that the noble Lord's intention is that the Government should disclose to Parliament the identities of the parties concerned and the sale consideration before shares in a successor company are sold. However, that would be unprecedented and in our view an impractical way to proceed. It would be unprecedented because none of the previous far larger privatisations that have occurred has required parliamentary approval of the purchasers in this way. This is an enabling Bill which seeks Parliament's approval for the framework in which the sale will take place.
The proposal is impractical because it would seriously hamper the sale process. We should not be negotiating in good faith and in confidence if, once we had concluded the deal, we were then to ask the prospective new owners to wait in the wings until we had sought further parliamentary approval. Prospective purchasers might well be deterred by the uncertainty involved in such an unusual process of seeking parliamentary approval. There could also be no guarantee that other interested parties might seek to reopen or challenge the sale process once details of the proposed sale come into the public domain.
It may be that the intention of the amendment is to ensure transparency in the sale process. Members of the Committee are concerned about the principles that will govern the privatisation and the kind of new owners that will emerge. The Government are clear what principles they will follow in this privatisation. First, we do not intend to sell BTG to a single industrial or commercial company. Secondly, we fully
718
intend to sell BTG to buyers who will take a long-term view and will want to continue its technology transfer activities. We shall look most carefully at the identities and intentions of the prospective purchasers to ensure this. Thirdly, there is a provision in the articles which prevents substantial disposals of assets without the shareholders' consent. Given that we have made our intentions clear, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary and for the reasons that I have set out it would be unprecedented and would make a sale extremely difficult. The Government must be free to negotiate and carry through the sale in a way that will not jeopardise the whole privatisation process. For that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall press the Minister further because I do not believe that any of his arguments stand up—not the first, second, third or fourth. The amendment may be technically flawed but it is not the job of the Opposition to draft amendments as parliamentary counsel would draft them. Any argument from the Government Benches that the Opposition's amendments are technically flawed in some manner falls on very deaf ears. If the Government would like to provide us with 150 parliamentary counsel we shall get our amendments properly technically drafted. Until then I hope that we shall adopt the principle that has always obtained in this Chamber; that the Opposition draft amendments making their intention perfectly clear and if the Government accepts them they draft them correctly. That is the answer to that argument, and I hope that we shall hear no more of this technically flawed stuff as we go through Committee.
Secondly, as regards previous privatisations, the Minister has given the game away. The Government have simply taken pigeon-hole privatisation, drawn out what happened in respect of British Steel, British Gas, electricity and so forth, and said, "We will do the same again". But the privatisation of BTG is quite different from those privatisations. It will not be a public flotation nor a trade sale; it is a special deal. There are no physical assets worth the name; the company is totally concerned with people and intellectual property. Therefore, in order to achieve the balance of power among the shareholding, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the Government must give up the idea that it is exactly the same as previous privatisations. It is wholly different.
Thirdly, the Minister said that my suggestion was impractical. It is not in the least impractical. The Government can negotiate in perfectly good faith. They can crash their way round the City of London talking to institutions, banks and trusts. They can then fix a deal and will have a condition precedent to the contract which is the announcement to Parliament. There are plenty of conditions precedent to contracts for sale all over the place. That is absolutely no reason for rejecting the amendment.
Fourthly, the requirement of further parliamentary approval in order to make sure that Parliament understands that the Government have done their best to achieve the balance of power referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and to obtain the best price

719
for the taxpayer while preserving the integrity and continuation of the business, which is based on intellectual property, does not seem to me onerous. I hope that the Minister can come up with some rather better argument.
Lord Meston: I wonder whether the Government have read too much into the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. My understanding is that at this stage he does not seek to invoke the affirmative resolution procedure. He merely requires that a statement is laid before Parliament; nothing more and nothing less. I join with him in failing to understand the argument that the negotiation would somehow lack good faith. It could not possibly lack good faith if both sides know the ground rules; and one of those ground rules will be, if this amendment or something like it is accepted, that there are those preconditions.
The Earl of Halsbury: On Second Reading I remarked that a friendly divorce had been agreed on and that we were now facing the problem of remarriage which, as Dr. Johnson said, represents the triumph of hope over experience.
I support this amendment and in particular subsection (1B). It is vitally important to have the right shareholding and the right people with the right ideas. One can see from the current BTG reports that the group admits that the pyrethroid insecticides have come to the end of their earning ability and that something else must be found. Those insecticides swam over the horizon at the very end of my term as managing director and have lasted for 30 years as the principal revenue earner. What will they be succeeded by? They are liable to be succeeded by another device which started at about mid-term of my managing directorship; namely, the Torotrak gear. It was initially known as the Perbury gear because it was invented by a Mr. Perry and a Mr. Bury. Their names were put together and the product was called the Perbury gear. However, it has now changed its name.
It is no longer a single development by BTG but is a joint project by BTG and Leyland. In the brochure one is invited to go to see it fitted to a Rover car. It is on the road. It has taken 35 years of patience and expenditure to see that through. That would not happen with shareholders impatient for short termism and profits tomorrow. Therefore, the future backers of the enterprise must be right minded. I believe it right that Parliament should be in a position to confirm that in its opinion the backers are right minded.
Why is that gear so important? It is a continuous variable gear from speed zero to speed maximum. Any gear ratio in the whole range is applicable. The result is that the computer control of engine performance is facilitated with fantastic results from the green point of view and as regards the composition of the exhaust gases. Unburnt hydrocarbon is down 33 per cent.; carbon monoxide is down 57 per cent.; carbon dioxide is down 80 per cent. and there is a beneficial effect as
720
regards fuel consumption, in miles per gallon, of 11.5 per cent. with a small deterioration in NOx. The brochure ends with the words:
"Come and talk to us. Test drive the new Torotrak CVT and prove to your own satisfaction that the Torotrak CVT really is the transmission of the future".
It has taken 35 years of possibly heartbreaking failures to reach that point. That is why the board must have the right composition and that is why I support the amendment, particularly subsection (1B), of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
I have not tabled any amendments. I wished to simplify our proceedings and I thought it better to support amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rather than to have a shot myself.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble friend replies I should like to take the opportunity to correct the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in one respect. The reference to the need to produce a balance of power between the interests of the different shareholders came from my noble friend and not myself. I asked my noble friend to say how he proposed in the first instance to achieve that balance of power and how the Government intended to ensure its continuation.
I hope that my noble friend is able to say rather more than merely putting another suit of clothes on the words. In my view that is what he did. He said that the Government intended to look carefully at the identities of buyers and their interests. I understand that. However, I am not yet satisfied as to how the Government will achieve the permanent enshrinement of a balance of power between the different shareholders.
Lord Reay: I take up the point made by my noble friend. A provision of the articles of association will be a 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholding. That will ensure that no one organisation can acquire a controlling interest in the company. To that extent there will have to be a balance of power in the ownership of the privatised company.
Lord Williams of Elvel: How will there be a balance of power just because nobody can own more than 15 per cent.?
Lord Reay: That is self-evident. If there is no controlling interest, by definition there must be a balance between the shareholdings, none of which will be above 15 per cent. As I said, that is our benchmark. Therefore, there must be a form of consortium which, by its nature, will provide a balance of power and interest.
I cannot pass over some of the remarks which the noble Lord made without commenting on them. He made heavy weather of the fact that I referred to a technical flaw in the amendment. I did not base a great argument on that. In fact, I brushed past it as soon as I decently could in order to meet him on his own ground as regards the principle behind the amendment. However, I should be failing in my duty to the Committee if I do not point out technical flaws where they have been detected.

721
I ask Members of the Committee who may be tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to reconsider whether this amendment is sensible. The Government are being asked to conclude a sale with some entity and then come back to this Chamber, state what the entity is, state what is to be the price of the sale and then seek the approval of the House.
I believe that to bring a deal into the public domain before it has been finalised and then ask for parliamentary approval is impracticable. It would invite all sorts of disturbances to the process of the sale. It would also act as a discouragement to potential purchasers to enter into the process of making a bid to buy the company. I said that it was unprecedented, but that does not surprise me. It seems to be a thoroughly bad idea.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is unprecedented because this is an unprecedented privatisation. I must repeat that and I shall continue to repeat it all the while it does not get through the heads of Members of the Committee opposite. It is unprecedented and therefore we must look at unprecedented possibilities. There is no reason why this Chamber should not invent precedents. That has been done before and I hope that it will be done again.
Let us concentrate on practicability. It seems to me to be possible to do a deal with a consortium with what the noble Lord refers to as a balance of power, whatever that may mean. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, corrected me for trying to put words into his mouth because they were the Minister's words. A deal is done. The condition precedent is that there is a statement to Parliament saying that the deal is done and a price is given.
That does not give an opportunity for anybody else to come in. The contract is initialled; contracts are exchanged; there is only one condition precedent and once that is fulfilled the contract is completed. Nobody else can come in once the deal is struck. It is only if Parliament, in its wisdom, decides that the Government have not achieved a balance of power or have sold to quite the wrong people, that we may experience trouble. Then we would have to pray against the order. Noble Lords know that praying against an order is an extremely difficult exercise.
It is a condition precedent purely for a contract of sale. I have been in the business of buying and selling companies for 20 years. I know that there are plenty of conditions precedent around when one has a contract of sale for a company. They do not allow anybody else to march in and make new bids. Exclusivity is granted to the buyer at the point at which contracts are exchanged and initialled. The noble Lord does not have a leg to stand on in the matter.
At this stage I do not wish to divide the Committee; that would be wrong. I shall certainly read what the Minister said and see whether I can glean any words of wisdom from it, although I am rather pessimistic about that possibility. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) The Articles of Association of the successor company shall contain inter alia the provisions set out in Schedule (Articles of Association of the British Technology Group Plc) while the company is wholly owned by the Crown, and thereafter until altered by the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 2. In our previous debate we discussed the special share. These amendments specifically address the problems of the special share.
I shall take, first, Amendment No. 2. The problem with the articles of association at the moment is that the special share may disappear at any time and will, if the Minister's prediction is right, disappear after five years. At that time there is no guarantee that the articles of association will not be changed by any future shareholding body; in other words, Parliament will have no say whatever in the future articles of association of the successor company once the special share has been redeemed.
We regard that situation as unsatisfactory. In order to preserve the integrity of the business we believe that the articles of association of the successor company should be contained in a schedule to the Bill. Clearly there must be mechanisms for changing the articles of association should the shareholders decide, in their wisdom, that they want to do so. I am sure the Minister will say that Amendment No. 2 is technically flawed, but I shall pass over that for the moment. It incorporates a method of changing the articles by simple order in both Houses of Parliament to enable Parliament to decide, after this unique privatisation, whether or not the articles of association should be changed.
If the articles of association are not written in on the face of the Bill as a schedule, they would contain no serious guarantee once the special share is redeemed. It could be redeemed tomorrow—not in the calendar sense but the day after the company is sold—and the articles of association could then be changed at will by the new shareholders.
I have not tried to include in my proposed new schedule—Amendment No. 6—the entirety of the articles of association that the Minister was kind enough to produce. I focused on one specific issue; that is, the special share. The articles of association state, as the Minister said, that there will be a special share which will be held by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, a Minister of the Crown or any other person acting on behalf of the Crown. Members of the Committee will notice a difference between my amendment and the existing articles of association. The present articles allow for a redemption of that special share either at the discretion of the Secretary of State after consultation with the company or at the end of five years, whichever is the earlier. We do not believe that that gives the company a proper guarantee for the future.
I note what the Minister says in regard to the Fifth Directive. I believe that the amendment is consistent with the philosophy of that directive. If it is not, then I do not understand why the Government are

723
privatising the company in the first place. Leaving that aside, it is possible for a special share to be "non-time limited"—if I may use that expression. At the same time, if that is challenged by the Commission, or anybody else in the European Court, and the United Kingdom lose, a mechanism exists under Amendment No. 2 for the articles of association to be changed to conform with that judgment, if that is the judgment that is handed down.
I want to start with a golden share unlimited in time. I will go further than the present articles, which draw attention to the rights of the special shareholder in the event of voluntary winding up, presentation or disposal of the whole company; I will go on to disposal of the whole or a material part of the assets of the group. Again I must remind Members of the Committee that we are dealing with intellectual property. I should like to feel that a material part will be confined to 10 per cent. of the assets rather than the higher figure contained in the present articles.
I accept that the amendments are not correctly drafted and need all kinds of adjustment to put them in proper technical form. But their effect is to make sure that the articles of association of the successor company—that is to say, privatised BTG—are a matter for Parliament and can be changed in specific circumstances only with the assent of Parliament. If that does not happen, there is no guarantee of permanency of the integrity and independence of BTG. That is the point behind the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: Between now and the Report stage we shall have to look carefully at the draft proposed articles most helpfully produced by the Government, and the proposals tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I readily echo what he says, that at this stage it is not a case of arguing over the detail of drafting but of looking at the general principles. The general principles that he raises are of fundamental importance in this case. Generally speaking, articles of association are not unalterable. I wonder whether the Government intend that there should be any provisions in the articles which are not to be altered; if not, they are capable of alteration under the provisions of the Companies Act.
The Minister indicated his thinking behind the five-year period. However, the uncertainty which has troubled those who are most concerned by the Bill, is preserved by the provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred; that is, allowing for redemption at any time. The concern as regards the Bill is not just asset stripping but asset preservation and the preservation of the long-term projects, such as those to which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has referred, and which are part of the unique business of the British Technology Group. I perceive from the Minister's remarks, both now and at Second Reading, that perhaps the Government now appreciate that BTG has unique qualities best known to those who are most concerned about its future. It is for that reason that we have to look very carefully at the details of the articles of association and ensure that there is not too much provision for future change when these matters
724
are out of the hands of both the Government and Parliament. To that extent I support what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I support the amendment in principle. The matter is of such complexity that I would like further time to study it when I have read in Hansard the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I received only yesterday the Government's memorandum and articles of association and I have not had time to do my homework. Therefore, I wish to reserve my position on the matter until the Report stage while giving a general blessing to the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in the hope that we can find a formula to which everyone can agree. The most important factor is the acceptability of future shareholders to BTG itself. That is very important. Doubtless it has a part to play in selecting its future shareholders one of these days. For the time being I give the noble Lord, Lord Williams, my moral support, but I shall not follow him into the Division Lobby at this stage if he cares to divide the Committee.
Viscount Caldecote: I do not believe that there is any disagreement between Members of the Committee that transfer technology is of great importance to the prosperity of our manufacturing industry. I do not believe that there is any disagreement that BTG has done a first-class job and that it will do a better one in the private sector. I believe that we are all trying to find the best way forward to enable the company to continue doing the good job that it has done in the past. I have some sympathy with the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
My noble friend the Minister spoke a great deal about the balance of power. But is not the balance of experience just as important? To some extent we shall come to that matter in future amendments. For instance, it would be possible for insurance companies or financial institutions of various kinds to buy 60 per cent. of the shares of the company and have control of it. However, that might not always be desirable. We shall come to that point to some extent in the amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. Can my noble friend the Minister say something about that matter? The important thing is to have people in charge of the company who we are confident will carry on the good work that the company does now.
Lord Reay: Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 would have the effect of writing special share provisions into a schedule of the Bill itself. That would be entirely unprecedented even in the case of far larger privatisations such as British Telecom. It would be entirely unprecedented to write special share articles into the enabling legislation, which is what the amendment proposes. The Government have always retained the right and flexibility to retain the precise special share provisions appropriate at the time of privatisation. In the case of BTG, entrenching the special share in the Bill in this way would remove the flexibility which, in our view, is essential if we are to

725
achieve a sale and maximise the proceeds to the taxpayer. One reason is that we want to retain the flexibility to allow, if necessary, shareholdings above 15 per cent. We do not necessarily want to rule out a good consortium, some of whose members might have more than a 15 per cent. holding.
For example, would noble Lords rule out a 30 per cent. stake being taken, for example, by the CVCP? Members opposite might say that in that case one can seek parliamentary approval. The delay and uncertainty involved could well jeopardise the interest of the prospective consortia and therefore the privatisation itself I must insist that the Secretary of State needs flexibility, as he has always done on previous occasions.
Amendment No. 6 sets out special share provisions which go further than what the Government have proposed in two ways. At present the threshold set out in the draft articles which we have prepared is assets which represent either 25 per cent. of net asset value or assets which generate 25 per cent. of average income. One of the two main effects of this amendment is to reduce the present threshold for restriction on disposals of assets from 25 per cent. to 10 per cent.
We believe that 25 per cent. is the right limit. It is intended to prevent a sale of the whole, or a substantial part, of the business of BTG, without the consent of the special shareholder. BTG's council and management have been consulted on the articles and strongly supported the Government's proposal to have a 25 per cent. limit on disposals of assets. They are as concerned as anyone about the future of BTG's business. But they clearly accept that the asset disposals threshold must be set at a practical level to allow the business to continue to operate on a commercial basis.
A 25 per cent. limit would catch substantial disposals of assets without involving the Government in vetting every disposal above £3 million, which is what the limit would be in absolute terms if the percentage proposed by the noble Lord were accepted. It would be quite wrong for the Government to be involved in the business affairs of the privatised company in that way. Indeed, we are privatising exactly in order to remove this sort of petty constraint on the company. A limit on disposals which was pitched at an unrealistically low level like that to catch individual asset disposals would unreasonably involve the Secretary of State as special shareholder in making commercial decisions. The amendment proposes that the time limit of up to five years on the special share should be removed.
There is a recognised precedent that, in order to allow a business that is being privatised time to adjust to the private sector, the Government may decide to take a time-limited special share. This is precedented in many previous cases; for example, in the privatisation of Jaguar, British Steel, the water companies and the regional electricity companies. In all those cases the special share was time-limited. It is time-limited in such cases because it is only needed during the relatively short transitional period while the new business adapts to its new commercial environment. It is no part of the Government's
726
business to continue to intervene indefinitely in the affairs of such private sector companies. Our aim is to give them time to establish themselves and prove their track record. Once the new company has established its credentials, there is no reason why it should not be subject like any other company, or any of its competitors, to the full disciplines of the market.
Viscount Caldecote: I wonder whether my noble friend can help me on one point. If BTG in its new form is very successful and continues to increase its profitability and the usefulness of its technological transfer, would not the company be in even better shape in five years' time, just at the time when the protection of the special share is removed? Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the company would then be open to being taken over by a predator who might well take a short-term view of the situation and not enable BTG to continue to do the excellent work that it is now doing and which we hope it will continue to do indefinitely?
Lord Reay: I have explained why the time-limited share has to be as it is and why it has always been so. There is another reason which I touched on in my original statement as to why it is wrong to have an unlimited time share. It concerns the European initiative on the removal of barriers to takeover and the proposed European Commission Fifth Directive. It is quite likely that the directive may only allow derogation from the principle of equal voting rights in the case of privatised companies where it is time-limited. In the past unlimited special shares may have been used but the developments in Europe, and United Kingdom support for the removal of the barriers to takeover initiatives, together with the kind of business which BTG is, make an unlimited time for the special share inappropriate today.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Try as I might I cannot perceive any serious argument coming from the Minister, either responding to my points or, specifically, to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. First, he says everything is unprecedented. What I have been trying to say—and I shall say it again and again until I am understood—is that this is an unprecedented privatisation. It is not like the regional electricity boards, British Gas, or anything like that. This is a technology transfer operation which employs 190 highly skilled people, whose assets are almost entirely in intellectual property and who perform a very valuable service. This is not another British Gas. Therefore, to claim that because it was right for British Gas, National Power, PowerGen, and all the other privatisations is absolutely no argument whatever for saying that it is right for BTG.
At the end of his reply the Minister referred to the proposed directive. This is a proposed directive which has a long way to go before it is finalised. There is nothing in existing legislation in the United Kingdom or anywhere else which would stop us having the special share permanent until somebody tells us we cannot do it. Nobody is telling us that at the moment. The point made by the noble Viscount, Lord

727
Caldecote, is absolutely right. If this company is as successful as we all hope it will be in either the private or the public sector—and if in the private sector we hope it will be successful—the time at which it will be most vulnerable to a takeover will be when the special share is pulled out. That will be the problem; so the whole thing will collapse on some predator coming in to take a short-term view of the value of the intellectual property involved. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid, but the Government do not seem to pay any attention.
We then get down to the question which is a fundamental dilemma of the Bill: do the Government want to see BTG in proper hands? By "proper hands"
I mean a sensible long-term solid body of shareholders who will stay there for the long term—and it is a very long term—knowing that the sort of developments that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to will be taken through. Or, to use the noble Lord's phrase, do the Government wish to maximise the proceeds for the taxpayer? I understand, intellectually, either possibility. The noble Lord is representative of the taxpayer. He can easily say, "Well, we shall flog the whole thing off for the highest price we can get. That's no problem". Indeed it is no problem for the Treasury. I suspect the Treasury is rather worried about the attention of the Public Accounts Committee in another place. Nevertheless, this is not the sort of company to fool about with. We have to get this into a shape where it has a proper shareholding, where the shareholding is long-term and constant and, in my view, where the special share continues without time limit. That is the only way we are going to secure the future of what is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said, an extremely valuable company from the point of view of the British economy.
I do not want to bang on too hard about this. I hope my message is gradually getting through to the Minister. I must say that I find his arguments wholly unpersuasive. He has not answered any of the points made by any Member of this Committee. He has simply relied on precedent and maximising proceeds to the taxpayer. The Committee has not got off to a very good start. I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said and as the Minister will no doubt say, that in its present form the amendment is technically flawed. I know that the Minister has not said that, but I admit that it is. However, I am trying to get at the point of principle, and it is the point of principle that I believe noble Lords have debated.
I hope the Government will take this matter away and consider it. The argument is being put forward not only by those on the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. There are important voices on all sides of the Chamber arguing for a sensible solution for this company. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not nominate a company for the purposes of this section unless he is satisfied that the memorandum and articles of association of the company make adequate provision for—

(a) imposing on the company a duty to safeguard and exploit intellectual property of all kinds; and

(b) enabling universities and research councils to participate in the direction of the company.").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 3 I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 4. Both amendments refer to the way that the Bill should reflect the proper interests of the research community in the constitution of the successor company. May I first apologise to your Lordships. Due to unavoidable absence abroad I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I shall resist the temptation to make a long and discursive speech now, partly because it is against the custom of the House to do so and also because were I to do so I should find it difficult to better the excellent speech already made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, at Second Reading. I am grateful that she joined me and other noble Lords in presenting these amendments because it is now clear that they have wide support in all parts of the Chamber.
I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for having made the draft memorandum and articles of association available to your Lordships in time for the Committee stage. The Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I have the honour to be the present chairman, has never taken a considered view about the future of BTG, important a matter though that is. However, it is an organisation well known to the members of that committee and at their meeting last week they made clear their concern that BTG should retain its essential independence of judgment when operating within the private sector. Accordingly, they encouraged me to write to the Minister about these documents believing them to contain the essence of the matter.
The memorandum and articles are encouraging but by themselves they do not suffice; they are permissive rather than prescriptive. The purpose of Amendment No. 3, particularly paragraph (a), is to ensure that the successor company has a duty to continue to undertake the kind of work presently done by BTG; namely, the development and exploitation of the intellectual property entrusted to it by institutions of higher education, especially the universities, and others active in research. It would ensure that the new company dealt with all intellectual property, not limiting itself to somebody's flavour of the month or to those items which happen to suit its more immediate commercial interests; for the business is by its nature essentially long term in character.
As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, illustrated so vividly, it is the willingness of BTG to look seriously at projects which are out of the main stream and that have so often underpinned BTG's success, earning it the respect of the research community. The Minister

729
said that that is understood by the Government; but it does not appear on the face of the Bill and that is what matters.
It has been said in another place and at Second Reading here that research councils, universities and, in the case of medicine, their teaching hospitals, provide some 70 per cent. of the intellectual property which BTG develops and transfers as appropriate to the commercial sector. Work at BTG is extremely important to them, returning some £8 million annually to inventors and their institutions. I have with me copies of many letters from vice-chancellors, and of course from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, representing all the universities which make that very clear indeed.
This amendment will put on the face of the Bill the requirement that the memorandum and articles continue after privatisation to make adequate provision for this very important sector to participate in and influence the direction of the company. Without those safeguards there is nothing in the Bill to indicate what the company should be doing, or to differentiate it from many other companies; indeed, to reflect the unique requirements placed upon it. The memorandum and articles do not suffice by themselves because, as everyone knows, they can be changed by a vote of the shareholders at any time, and especially when government interest has waned as it inevitably will in due course.
Therefore, even though the draft memorandum and articles of association have been made available, for which we are indeed grateful, and even though the documents recognise the role of universities by making welcome provision for the appointment by the CVCP of a director of the company, the link with the universities and the research councils is so vital that it should find expression on the face of the Bill. Lest it be thought from anything I have said that I find these documents satisfactory in all respects, I should add, speaking as a former chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, that the CVCP is now seeking a professional opinion about them which should be available before we reach the Report stage. When I have seen that advice, I may feel inclined to press matters further.
Much the same considerations apply to Amendment No. 4 and so I shall not repeat myself. The amendment requires that there should be provision on the face of the Bill regarding the experience and capacity of the directors of the successor company. The special characteristics of BTG are by now well known to noble Lords and have been further rehearsed today. In order to preserve its essential features it is important that the directors of a successor company should understand and have extensive experience of the business of research and that this requirement should continue indefinitely. The proposed new clause would ensure that at least a third of the directors, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, met the requirement. This is no more than an extension of the present composition of the BTG council, which has eight members in addition to its chairman and chief executive, three of whom are
730
drawn from universities and research councils. Their first-hand experience of research is much valued by the BTG management. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: I support these two amendments in general terms. A little history may interest the Committee. When I became the first managing director I realised what a rich source of inventive supply the world of academia would be. I set out to gain its confidence. I had a rather unusual power of selection of future board members, due to circumstances which I described at Second Reading. I thought that the individual who was to become the late Lord Blackett would be my passport to the universities. He was pure academic. He was a Nobel Prize winner. He had everyone's confidence and became a member of the board in due course.
The next stage in gaining the confidence of the universities was to assure them that we were not trying to set up a monopoly of any kind in receiving the output of the universities. I toured every university in the country to explain that if the university wanted to do something itself it should go ahead and do it. If it found itself in difficulties it should ask for help; but if it wanted us to do something it had only to say so and we would do our best to respond correctly and give the appropriate advice. As a result, a tremendous amount of good will built up between the NRDC, as it then was, and the universities.
After my time it seemed appropriate to the Treasury that inventions made in universities with funds from the research councils should be directed to the NRDC. The Treasury made a pronunciamento to that effect as a result of which the universities were required to hand things over to the NRDC. The NRDC immediately forfeited the confidence of the universities. This became a matter of so much ill will that the Treasury ukase was put into reverse and immediately BTG regained the confidence of the universities. Therefore, to have on the council a membership which would enable the universities and research councils to participate in the direction of the company would merely be reverting to first principles. I support it entirely.
Amendment No. 4 is a slightly more elaborate version of the recital contained in the original Development of Inventions Act 1948. I have not had time to investigate fully but I do not think it involves any new point of principle. I support it. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, I want to make a study of what transpires in Committee. Therefore, I do not wish to see the amendment pushed to a Division at this stage. Nevertheless, it has my full support.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am not a scientist but I was involved while at Oxford with the whole question of our policy on intellectual property. I wish to endorse most strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said. Indeed, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
In May 1985 the Green Paper on the development of higher education into the 1990s urged the importance of higher education seeking to derive more of its total income from sources other than the

731
taxpayer and the ratepayer. The British Technology Group offered, as a public institution, a very effective and acceptable way for many university scientists and engineers to exploit their inventions through its facilities for technology transfer. That intellectual property represents well over 50 per cent. of BTG's value. It seems only reasonable and right that BTG's successor company should be required to continue to serve in every way as well as before its most important source of supply.
Cast-iron guarantees are needed that such areas of support as, first, a degree of long-term strategic investment in developing new ideas and, secondly, energetic measures to protect patents, to litigate to recover royalties and to pursue infringement cases, should be as strong as before. The BTG has always emphasised the prime importance of being able to protect intellectual property effectively. This often requires a major investment of resources and expertise, as we have been told. Equally, the universities, the prime users, are rightly concerned about a privatised body proving reluctant on short-term commercial grounds to produce the sometimes speculative investment needed over many years to take an innovation from the experimental stage to the point where its commercial potential can be properly assessed.
The BTG has been willing to take a consistently long-term view, in keeping with its origins. Would a private company do that? The answer is almost certainly, no, unless specific provision is made in the legislation that the existing approach to the funding of innovation should continue as before. Such major technologies as magnetic resonance imaging, which is still being funded, and cephalosporin, an established success, owe their development to BTG funding. I am confident that the Government will see the force of the argument that these special aspects of BTG's work must be preserved.
The point which needs particularly to be recognised is that we cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, requiring universities to make research pay and to make it available for exploitation for the nation's good, and, on the other hand, in principle, proposing to transfer BTG's powers to a private company whose object is described in the articles of association as acting "for the purposes of the company". Hence our concern that there should be proper safeguards.
I had expected to speak separately to the other amendment. However, following the excellent example of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, I shall not take the time of the Committee beyond making the point, which I think is important, that scientists themselves have always been happy to provide their intellectual property for the public good but they would possibly have very real problems if they were to doubt the conditions in which that intellectual property would be handled by a successor company.
5 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: When my noble friend replies to what is to my mind an eminently reasonable amendment, I hope that he will at least reflect some
732
concern or a belief that universities have a contribution to make and that inventors have some rights. So far as I can see from a First Reading of the Bill, neither of those important features are to be found in it. It cannot be assumed that investors will want to go to universities to seek their advice and be guided by it; nor can it be assumed that investors whose interests are, often enough, quite short term are the same as those of inventors whose interests are essentially long-term.
I return to the point which was first raised by my noble friend. I refer to the question of a conflict of interests. The Bill appears to be unconcerned with the issue. I appreciate my noble friend's difficulty in answering a quite simple question, for the very good reason that I do not believe a satisfactory answer exists. However, I hope that my noble friend will address the point in his reply that there is great unease about the Bill. So far as I am aware, there is no great enthusiasm for it. I am not at all sure who will gain from it. I should be most grateful if my noble friend could give us some idea on that aspect of the matter.
In such circumstances, I believe that it is up to the Government not just to talk—as they have frequently done—about the need for integrity, impartiality and independence; they must say very clearly how they will achieve those very desirable objectives.
Lord Kirkwood: Like the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the little I have to say in support of this amendment also applies to Amendment No. 4. Both amendments refer to the independence of BTG.
There can be little doubt about the success of BTG under its present chief executive, Ian Harvey. That can be gauged by the fact that the royalties earned last year exceeded the total earned by the entire US universities system and government research system combined. One can appreciate the argument for privatisation; namely, that further growth and success on the international scene could be inhibited by association with a UK government (of whatever hue), particularly in view of the great opportunities for business in Europe opening up in 1992.
However, a crucial part of the success of the enterprise is the perception by researchers in universities, polytechnics and government research stations, that BTG is an independent organisation anxious to secure the best deal for its customers in the market. Should the group lose that—by being taken over by a commercial enterprise interested only in short-term profits, in asset stripping or in obtaining favourable licensing terms for itself to the exclusion of competitors—then the goose will certainly fly from the BTG nest and may refuse to lay any golden eggs anywhere.
It is to ensure that the independence of BTG be written on the face of the Bill—and that is what BTG itself wants—that these amendments have been laid before this Chamber. I urge Members of the Committee to support them.
Viscount Caldecote: I support the general thrust of these amendments because I think that it contributes to the objective which I mentioned a short time ago;

733
namely, the continued prosperity and success of BTG. However, the significance of the amendments depends to some extent on the answer to the question which I raised earlier as to whether the memorandum and articles of association will be firm before the Bill is enacted or whether they will remain in draft form. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten us in that respect.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I very much regret that my noble friend Lady Hollis is unable to be present in the Chamber today. However, if she had been here, as she has attached her name to the amendments, she would certainly have spoken in favour of both of them. I shall do the same.
In supporting the amendments, I slightly echo the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. Even though these amendments may mark an important step in preserving the integrity of the business as it stands, in my view they do not go quite far enough. I should prefer to have—this is why those of us on this Front Bench did not put our names to the amendments—a sort of arrangement where the articles of association (including the very desirable points enshrined by the amendments) are in some sense fixed in stone before the company is privatised.
However, I regard Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 as being important. They are important as expressions of principle because without such provisions in the Bill—and what is proposed I regard to be a minimal position—I simply do not believe that the integrity of the business will be protected over time.
Lord Reay: In replying to Amendment No. 3 tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Kirkwood, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, I should like, first, to point out that we have already taken into account the interests of the academic sector in the direction of the privatised BTG in Article 79 of the draft articles of association. I make this point especially to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The article provides for a director appointed by the university. To be precise, he will be appointed by the CVCP after consultation with the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics. That carries into concrete form part of the requirement of Amendment No. 3.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote asked me about the status of the draft memorandum. He was quite right to ask the question again. I apologise for not having answered it before. It is in draft form at this stage and we expect to stick to the principles which are set out therein. However, we must retain the ability to change the details if necessary.
I should point out that the draft memorandum placed before the Committee already sets out in some detail the activities of the successor company. Those activities cover technology transfer in far more detail than is the case in the proposed amendment. For example, perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to paragraph 4(A) (iii) on page 1 of the memorandum which sets out what the activities of the company will be. It says:
"To apply for, or join in applying for, purchase or by other means acquire and protect, prolong and renew, whether in the United Kingdom or otherwise any intellectual property rights
734
including patents, patent rights, brevets d'invention, licences, copyrights, secret processes, trade marks, registered designs, protections, concessions and the like, and to use and turn to account and to manufacture under or grant licences or privileges in respect of the same, and to expend money in experimenting and testing and making researches, and in improving or seeking to improve any patents, inventions or rights which the Company may acquire or propose to acquire".
The privatised BTG will have the power to carry out its traditional technology transfer activities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for just a moment. I must point out that that does not impose any duty on the company whatever.
Lord Reay: I was, in fact, going to deal with that point.
As I was saying, that will give BTG the power to carry out its traditional technology transfer activities. The power will be utilised by new owners who wish to continue those activities. It is our intention to sell BTG to such new owners. But imposing a duty of this kind, which is what the noble Lord would like to do, would be meaningless unless it matched the intentions of the new owners. How could such a duty be enforced? To place a duty on the new owners in the articles of association to safeguard and exploit intellectual property of all kinds would take away from the company the ability to exercise the power in the memorandum as it thinks best in the long term commercial interests of the company. The articles of association constitute a contract between the company and each member. Therefore, it is those members who would have to enforce the duty in the articles imposed upon the company and they could not be required to do so. They would also be able to amend the relevant article by a special resolution.
The memorandum of the new company provides for such technology transfer activities to be part of the privatised BTG's business. But the crucial factor would be the identity of the new owners and their intentions. We intend to sell the company to owners who will continue the traditional business.
As far as Amendment No. 4 is concerned (I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not listening) I must say that it is technically flawed if the intention is to effect the composition of the first directors of the privatised BTG. This is because we shall need to set up the successor company for BTG as a shell company before we vest the assets, property and liabilities of the NEB and the NRDC in its. The first directors of the BTG's successor company will therefore be purely nominal appointments to the shell company, probably civil servants from the DTI. They will not be the same people as those appointed by the new shareholders of the privatised company.
However, I accept that that is not the intention of the amendment and I shall therefore address the principle behind the amendment.
The Government fully accept the important role played by the academic sector in BTG's past development and the role which it can—and I have no doubt will—play in the future. We have therefore consulted the CVCP and listened to its representations. There have been two results of this process. First, as I mentioned, we have included a provision in

735
the articles for one director to be actually appointed by the CVCP in consultation with the polytechnics. Secondly, we believe that the CVCP is considering a proposal, which it is discussing with the universities and its financial advisers, to take a financial stake in the privatised company.
Those practical proposals, taken together, would go further than the proposed amendment in two respects. First, we are giving the power of appointment to the board to the academic sector; and, secondly, we are allowing for the possibility of a CVCP-held stake, which would result in the academic sector having further close involvement with, and a say in, the business of the privatised BTG.
If a CVCP stake in the privatised BTG materialises there may well be additional directors from the academic sector with relevant experience of research and its exploitation. I must emphasise that there is no reason why further such directors with relevant experience should not be appointed. Indeed, the articles we have presented are drafted to help keep open that possibility to the new shareholders. Article 80 specifically says that directors of the company do not require a share qualification. It will therefore be open to the shareholders to appoint further such independent directors as and when they wish.
We believe that such practical arrangements for the continuing participation of the academic sector in BTG's business should be welcome to the Committee. However, we do not believe that the Secretary of State should in some way dictate the composition and experience of the board. I accept that there will be a need for relevant experience on the board of technology, of intellectual property rights, and of public as well as private sector research. There will also be a need for commercial and financial skills. But it will be for the new owners to decide how to achieve the right balance. They will clearly bear all those factors in mind in making their appointments. We do not believe it is right for the Secretary of State to intervene in the composition of the board to the extent required by this amendment.
For those reasons I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps he will consider what he said. I understood him to say that it is useless to impose duties on the new owners without knowing their intentions. That is what worries me most. I hope that my noble friend will understand that while it is interesting to have in front of us articles which reveal what is presently in the Government's mind, they are in no way the same as enshrining a principle in a Bill which we can amend. We cannot amend articles. I have the strongest objection to articles of association being used as anything other than an indication of the Government's present thinking. When the Government move from that and treat articles of association as if they were some alternative to legislation I feel very uneasy indeed.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If I may supplement what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, there is absolutely no reason in law why the objects of the company should not be rephrased in the way that the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Flowers, require, and that should be enshrined in legislation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would be delighted to offer his services, for a certain consideration, in order to draft the objects. If the Government lawyers cannot do it properly, we can do it for them. It is vitally important that a duty be imposed on the company. Otherwise—I will tell the noble Lord this absolutely straight—not only will the company not perform its duty but it will not be worth very much. That is the point.
Lord Reay: Perhaps I may reiterate what I said. By their nature the articles of association constitute a contract between the company and each member. It is therefore those members who would have to enforce the duty in the articles which would be imposed upon the company. There is nothing that could require them to do so. That is what I meant when I said that a duty such as would be required by this amendment could be enforced only if it matched the intentions of the new owners.
Lord Meston: To follow on from what the noble Lord said, he is quite right in saying that the objects in the memorandum do not bind the company. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I noted the Minister's remarks about matching the intentions of the new owner. The trouble is that we do know what the intentions of the new owner may be. Although the Minister drew our attention to paragraph 4A(iii) of the proposed draft memorandum, we could equally look at paragraph 4(Q) and see that the new owners can sell or dispose of any real or personal property or the undertaking of the company for whatever considerations they may approve. In other words, they can sell off the whole lot. It is not enough just to look at the memorandum and articles and say they give us assurances for the future. There has to be some statutory provision. The various amendments which we have heard today are directed at that.
Lord Flowers: I am grateful for the support that noble Lords all round the Committee have shown for these amendments, which are intended to preserve some of the essential features and independence of the BTG. I apologise if Amendment No. 4 is indeed flawed, but I think its intention is clear enough. I shall certainly take it back and look at it again before the next stage should it be necessary to reintroduce it in some form.
In response to the Minister, I readily acknowledge that there is some comfort for the research community in the articles of association. However, they do not stand part of the Bill. As I understand it, they can be changed by the company at will or at any rate by a vote of the shareholders. On the contrary, we seek something more permanent on the face of the Bill to guarantee the continuation of the essence of BTG.

737
From what the Minister said, it seems that the Government seek maximum flexibility in order to maximise immediate profits to the taxpayer—a worthy objective. However, they wish to do so at the expense of longer term benefits (through innovation in industry) to the economy and therefore to the taxpayer. The question is: where does the balance of advantage lie—in the short term, or in the long term? It is in the hope that the Government will reflect further on this important matter before the Report stage that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Meston: Perhaps I may raise a matter that I mentioned at Second Reading. It concerns the thinking behind Clause 1(5) which provides for the revocation or variation of orders to name a day or to name a successor company. Rather than speculate on why the provision may be necessary, I ask directly why it appears in the Bill. I supplement that question by asking whether it is envisaged that there will be a time gap between the making of the order and the appointed day. It may be that this has just been inserted from an abundance of caution or there may be some specific purpose. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us.
Lord Reay: I shall have to look into that. I apologise for the fact that the noble Lord asked the question previously and did not receive a reply. I shall look into it and let him know.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert ("as to ensure that the beneficial ownership of more than ten per cent. of the successor company shall not be owned by a company which is not situated in the United Kingdom and which is itself not controlled beneficially or otherwise by persons other than United Kingdom citizens.").
The noble Lord said: This is in the nature of a probing amendment to determine the Government's attitude towards foreign ownership or foreign participation in the successor company. Some concern has been expressed in various quarters that the intellectual property which forms the assets of BTG could be valuable to foreign companies. Foreign companies may, as it were, club together. I realise that no one is allowed to own more than 15 per cent., but if, for example, four foreign companies clubbed together in one form or another through various vehicles, either inside or outside the United Kingdom, it would be possible for them to gain advantage of the intellectual property which resides within BTG.
I do not know whether the Government have considered the point. If so, what is their view? I should be grateful if the Minister would pay attention to it and let me know the Government's view. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Our reply is quite simple. On the question of foreign ownership, as no doubt many Members of the Committee will be aware, we are constrained by our treaty obligations with our European Community partners. We cannot exclude European Community nationals from share ownership or discriminate against them in any way. That would be contrary to our obligations under Articles 7 and 221 of the Treaty of Rome. We therefore cannot rule out potential buyers solely on grounds of nationality.
I wish to point out that in any case the special share provision that we envisage taking would prevent any one buyer—whatever its nationality—taking control of BTG. Article 42 of the draft articles placed before the House achieves that because it limits any individual shareholding from the United Kingdom or from overseas to 15 per cent. We are therefore only talking about a situation where there would be foreign investment in BTG, not overall foreign control of BTG by one organisation. Foreign investment in BTG is something that spokesmen of the party opposite were prepared to support in Committee in another place at the higher limit of 20 per cent.
We should not give the impression that we are in any way antagonistic towards foreign investment in British companies and in the British economy. An element of foreign investment in the privatised BTG could help it to raise capital and expand into overseas markets, continuing its development as a world technology transfer organisation. This development could in turn be of benefit to the longer term continuity and stability of the privatised BTG.
Perhaps I may again make the point to the Committee that BTG is already a world technology transfer organisation. Over 70 per cent. of its licence income comes from overseas. That is because technology is not parochial or limited by national frontiers; it is international. If BTG helps to develop United Kingdom inventions and license them abroad, that would be to the benefit of the United Kingdom because United Kingdom inventors then enjoy licence revenue-sharing agreements with BTG. I hope that that goes some way towards answering the question which the noble Lord raised.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. He went slightly off on the wrong tack. I am not in the least opposed to moderate foreign investment in BTG. That is obviously acceptable. I understand our Community obligations. However, let us take the case which may be hypothetical, but it could happen: seven Japanese companies club together and each takes one-seventh of the company. They offer a price which the Treasury cannot resist, 50 per cent. higher than any other bid that the Treasury received. Having respect for the Public Accounts Committee in another place, the Treasury has to accept it. Is that a situation with which the Government are comfortable?
Lord Reay: The noble Lord asks an extremely hypothetical question. He invites me to consider a situation in which no United Kingdom investors come forward, but we certainly expect United Kingdom

739
investors to come forward at the appropriate time and to offer to take stakes in the privatised company. Of course, any such offers from United Kingdom bodies will be considered on an equal basis with all others. We do not intend to discriminate, nor can we on grounds of nationality.
I wish to make another point. As the noble Lord knows, whether they are foreign or United Kingdom investors, they will not be able to acquire more than a 15 per cent. shareholding in the privatised company. That will prevent effective control going to a single foreign company, as I said. However, any grouping of companies acting together would likewise be caught by the special share provision.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not sure that the Minister has answered my question. To prove that Japanese companies and banks are acting in concert is an extremely difficult operation, as I know from my past career. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord will pay some attention to this point. When we come to Report, perhaps he will have a slightly more satisfactory reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 17 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Provisions Supplementary to s.1.]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 48, at end insert:("and
(c) the NRDC Group Pension Fund including any accrued surpluses shall remain solely for the benefit of the members of the fund and their dependants and shall not be used by the successor company for any other purposes.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. These amendments collectively address the problem of the NRDC group pension fund. The Committee will be aware that the pension fund is governed by a trust deed. There are seven trustees of whom three are appointed by the employer. BTG has had a good record in appointing employees rather than non-employees as trustees. The election of trustees was introduced by the NRDC. The unions are particularly anxious that this practice should continue. We would like to see the practice safeguarded in the legislation.
Similarly, the present arrangements for pensions allow an inflation-linked principle which is common throughout the Civil Service. However, that does not necessarily flow into the private sector when a company is privatised. I should be glad to hear the Government's views on that. I recognise that Amendment No. 7 may be going a little too far in trying to ensure that surpluses in the fund accrue for the benefit not only of members of the scheme but also for past members; that is, pensioners. There may in future—I stress the words "in future"—be occasions when it may be appropriate for an employer to take a holiday from pensions contributions. I emphasise that that only applies to the future because at the moment public funds—that is, indirectly, taxpayers' money
740
—have entered the NRDC fund. It would be a mistake to allow the fund to be stripped in any way by a future privately owned company for the benefit of private shareholders.
Amendment No. 8 concerns the trust deed of the scheme. I understand that at the moment it is under revision. The trust deed states that all employees of BTG who are over 21 may join the scheme but, upon reaching the age of 30, all employees must join and the trustees must accept the employer's word as regards who is or is not an employee. It seems appropriate to give the trustees discretion as regards who to accept as a member, as that would help to protect the fund against the possibility of a future employer flooding the scheme with members who were not strictly employees.
Amendment No. 9 is designed to ensure that if unsuitable members are nominated for the scheme, they will not be allowed to join it. These are probing amendments. I am trying to ascertain the Government's view on the future of the NRDC pension fund. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: I declared an interest in this matter on Second Reading. If the Committee accepts the amendments, I am sure that I and my fellow pensioners will be duly grateful.
Lord Reay: I understand entirely the sentiments underlying the three amendments which the noble Lord has tabled. I share his concern to see that the rights of past and present members of the pension scheme are protected after privatisation and that surpluses which have accrued over the years are not dissipated to the detriment of the underlying financial viability of the fund. At the same time we should bear in mind when considering these amendments the importance of striking a fair balance between the rights of employees and those of employers.
Amendment No.7 provides for any accrued surplus to be used solely for the benefit of the members and not to be used by the successor company for any other purposes. It is designed to ensure that both the present surplus and any possible future surplus has to be used to improve benefits. It will effectively prevent the employer taking a contributions holiday or taking a refund of a surplus while the scheme is ongoing, or a refund or a surplus should the scheme be wound up. In the Government's view the amendment is undesirable and would fall foul of statutory requirements, particularly the Income and Corporation Taxes Act of 1988, and the NRDC trust deed.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 already provides a comprehensive provision which ensures that the only effect of vesting on existing agreements is to substitute the successor company for the corporation and the board. Thus if a pension arrangement or a contract of employment applies before vesting, it will apply after vesting. The successor company is simply substituted for the corporation and the board. Paragraph 4(1) (b) goes on to state specifically for the avoidance of doubt that Clause 1 of the Bill,

741
"is effective to vest the rights and liabilities of the Corporation or Board under any agreement or arrangement for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities in the successor company".
It is not for the Government to dictate how accrued surpluses should be treated, much less to direct that they should, in BTG's case, be used solely for the benefit of the members of the fund and their dependants to the exclusion of the successor company. The Inland Revenue lays down limits on the amount of pension an individual may receive and the amount of assets the fund may hold and still receive tax exemptions. The surplus could not be used to increase benefits beyond Inland Revenue limits without jeopardising the tax exempt status of the scheme.
If the surplus assets in the fund exceed 105 per cent. of the scheme liabilities, there would be a statutory surplus within the meaning of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the excess funds would cease to attract favourable tax treatment. In order to avoid any tax charge, the scheme assets may be reduced by the following methods: making payments to the employer; suspending or reducing contributions of the employer or the employees; and increasing benefits under the scheme.
It would be wrong to deprive a successor company of the full range of options for dealing with a surplus when these options are themselves laid down by statute. Such matters are inevitably a matter for discussion between an employer and the trustees of the pension scheme and with the wider membership, particularly through trade union representation. Precedents from court cases have shown that it is extremely difficult for an employer to take unilateral decisions in relation to the pension scheme to the detriment of members, particularly as regards the use of surplus funds.
In addition the amendment would preclude the refund of any surplus to the employer in the event of a winding up. This would be contrary to Inland Revenue rules which require any surplus on winding up to be refundable to the employer. The NRDC group pension fund rules also provide for a surplus on winding up to be refunded to the employer. If this amendment were approved, the pension fund rules would be incompatible and would need to be changed. If such a situation were to arise, there is a danger that the scheme would lose the approval of the superannuation funds office and would have to be wound up. I am sure that no one in this Committee would wish to see that happen.
It is a matter for the trustees of the pension fund who are independent of BTG management and the Department of Trade and Industry to deal with any surplus. The scheme is already adequately protected in that the actuary is appointed and selected by the trustees and is therefore outside the control of the corporation. In practice it is likely that any accrued surpluses will in future continue to be dealt with on actuarial advice in the same way as before; namely, by improved benefits to members and by a contribution holiday for the corporation.
Amendment No. 8 gives the trustees a discretion on whether a new member should be admitted or not. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent an employer
742
requiring the trustees to admit members who are inappropriate, for example because either singly or together they would be a financial burden on the fund.
The reality is that the trustees already have significant control over the introduction of new members in that they have a discretion to refuse to accept a transfer of past service benefits if, for example, they are not adequately funded.
Therefore, although the employer may determine who is eligible to join the scheme for future service, it is the trustees who have a discretion to admit members in respect of past service through their control and the acceptance of transfer payments from other schemes. That is equally true of individual and bulk transfers into the fund. The trustees can therefore ensure that the scheme receives adequate funds in respect of the past service of such new members. Further, as the trustees effectively control the contribution rate (by appointing the actuary) they can also effectively ensure that future service is also adequately funded.
We must also take account of employment law considerations. The provision of a pension scheme is a part of the terms and conditions of employment and is a benefit provided by the employer for its employees. It would be untenable to have a position where the provision of pension benefits is denied to an employee by the trustees of the scheme as that could possibly place the employer in breach of contract. The role of the trustees is to administer the operation of the fund and oversee the payment of benefits and not to decide who receives benefits—that is the role of the employer. For those reasons that amendment is unnecessary and undesirable.
I turn now to the last of the three amendments, Amendment No. 9. The effect of that amendment would be to remove the employer's present right to veto the nomination of any elected trustee and to lessen the control which the employer has over the constitution of the trustees, thus ceding more control to the employees.
The amendment is unnecessary in view of the fact that under the present scheme the employer does not have an unfettered right to veto a nomination for an elected trustee. The procedure for the election of elected trustees is laid down in the rules of the scheme. The starting point is that any three members of the scheme may nominate any other member who is an employee for at least one calendar year to be an elected trustee. The corporation has a right to veto any such nomination, but that right can only be exercised after there has been full consultation with the recognised trade union and if in the opinion of the corporation the person nominated is unsuitable to be a trustee.
So far as concerns the suitability of trustees there is a perfectly sensible procedure under the present scheme to ensure that suitable members are put forward for election. The consultation process ensures that the right of veto can be challenged and is not a blanket veto. Being a trustee of a pension scheme involves onerous obligations and is not a position which should be taken up lightly.
The independence of the trustees is further protected by the appointment of an additional trustee

743
as chairman. He has a casting vote when there is an equality of votes and has traditionally been chosen for his independence. His appointment must be approved by the other six trustees. Further, the trustees are required under trust law to act in the best interests of the members or risk personal liability. The use of a trust in itself acts to ensure that decisions are made with the interests of the members being properly taken into account.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will be reassured that adequate protection already exists under the present scheme and that he will see fit not to move the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Minister for his lengthy explanation of the rather complex position regarding the fund. I shall have to read through what he has said very carefully with my advisers before deciding what to do at the next stage.
There is only one point of principle I wish to make. While the company has been in public ownership, it has been public funds—indirectly taxpayers' money—which has gone into the fund. It would be a great mistake if the taxpayers' money were allowed to be stripped out by a future private owner for the benefit of private shareholders.
In the light of what the Minister has said—and I shall have to read Hansard very carefully when it comes out—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Royal Assent
5.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Act,

Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Act,

Oversea Superannuation Act,

Maintenance Enforcement Act,

Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Act,

Football (Offences) Act,

Registered Homes (Amendment) Act,

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act,

New Roads and Street Works Act,

Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act,

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act,

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act,

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act,

Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Act,

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act,

Property Misdescriptions Act,

744

Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Act,

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Act,

Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Act,

London Underground (Victoria) Act,

Llanelli Borough Council (Dafen Estuary) Act.

Vienna Document (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1991
5.47 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to confer privileges and immunities on observers, inspectors, evaluators and auxiliary personnel, in accordance with the provisions of the 1990 Vienna document of the negotiations on confidence and security-building measures.
The order is necessary for the United Kingdom to give effect in domestic law to those provisions on privileges and immunities. The order is being made under Section 1(2) of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1988. The privileges and immunities it confers follow the pattern of Section 1(1) of the 1988 Act under which observers and inspectors visiting the UK under the Stockholm document were granted the privileges and immunities of diplomatic agents and auxiliary personnel were granted the privileges and immunities of the administrative and technical staff or the service staff of a mission.
Those privileges and immunities will in practice be enjoyed only rarely by visitors to the UK. The Vienna document sets limits on what each participating state is obliged to accept. For the United Kingdom this amounts to three inspections and one evaluation visit per year. Observations are linked to the size of military exercises. The United Kingdom has been obliged to host only one since the adoption of the 1986 Stockholm document. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Richard has asked me to apologise for his absence and to say that he wishes the order well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies Act 1986 (Continuance of Section 41) Order 1991
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to continue for a further five years the power of the Building Societies Commission to require a building society to apply for renewal of its

745
authorisation. That power, provided by Section 41 of the Building Societies Act 1986, was originally intended as part of the transitional arrangements relating to the new prudential regime introduced by that Act; hence its initial limitation to a five-year period after the passage of the Act. However, it has proved to be a useful and flexible power with an application beyond the transitional period and is well worth maintaining as part of the commission's regulatory armoury.
Building societies are unable to raise money from members or to accept deposits unless authorised to do so by the Building Societies Commission under Section 9 of the Act. At the time the Act came into force, existing building societies were given deemed authorisation as it was not considered worthwhile to require all societies to apply for authorisation. However, the Section 41 power provides an important safeguard. If the commission has reason to believe that a building society's business is or may be conducted in a way that may not adequately protect the investments of shareholders and depositors, the commission can direct the society to apply to it for renewal of authorisation.
The type of situation in which the Section 41 power is useful and necessary is where, over a period of time, the commission has a number of grounds for doubts about the adequacy of the way in which the building society conducts its business and where the society does not respond sufficiently to the normal persuasion process of supervision. The state of a society may not be such as to justify the imposition of conditions on the society's authorisation by the commission, but the commission may still have underlying misgivings about the way in which the society is run. This is an effective but nevertheless entirely non-contentious piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne).
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House approved the original legislation and the reason for bringing it forward, so we certainly raise no objection to its extension. However, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to acquaint the House with the extent to which the powers in the Bill have been called into use. He said that adequate protection was provided, and he referred to the requirement for and the value of this piece of legislation in regard to dealing with those building societies which do not take the action necessary to allay the commission's underlying doubts. He must have some statistics regarding the extent to which the power in the Bill has been used. There must be a body of evidence collected over the past five years which shows that it is needed, that it has been effective and that, as a consequence, an extension is required. I understand that the Minister may not be able to provide that information; but I should be surprised if he cannot do so as it is an obvious question and he must be well briefed on it.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The power may be used only once within a period of five years for any particular building society. The society has up to six months to put its house in order, if that is necessary, before it seeks to satisfy the commission that it is fit to continue to be authorised. The procedure allows the commission to reach a decision on the basis of a more fundamental and wider review of the prudential position of the society than is possible in the normal course of supervision.
The Section 41 power has so far been used only once, but it is of greater value than that would suggest. As with other prudential powers, the society would often prefer to do what is necessary without having formal legal procedures invoked. In conclusion, the Section 41 power is a useful part of the commission's range of prudential controls and one which merits continuance for a further five years.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister having come armed with the answer. I agree that the fact that the power has been used only once is a good indication of its deterrent effect and that it encourages building societies to take the necessary steps to avoid its use.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Badgers Bill
5.54 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Extension of general exceptions]:
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 16, after ("or") insert ("after midday of the day preceding the day of the hunt, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment which, sadly, was overlooked in Committee. Its purpose is to permit the stopping of badger setts with straw, hay or loose soil, as outlined in the Bill, before midnight. Under the Bill as presently drafted, no stopping is permitted except on the day of the hunt. That is quite acceptable for stopping with bundles of sticks or paper bags because it would not be appropriate to stop badger setts the evening before a hunting day in that way as badgers can either be stopped in or out of their setts for some time, being unable to remove the stop. However, in the case of loose materials, a badger can easily dig his way in or out as he wants to.
Where a large number of holes have to be stopped, it has been pointed out that a single-handed earth-stopper could well find it hard to get round if he was confined to stopping on the morning of the hunting day. He may well want to stop on the afternoon or evening beforehand. The amendment would permit that, but only if he uses loose materials, not a bundle of sticks or paper bags which are not covered by the amendment and could only be used on the morning of the hunt. If the earth stopper returns in the morning, he may well find that the badger has dug his way out of one of the holes. He can then restop

747
the hole. It may well be of help to him to have it confirmed that the set is active so as to ensure that it is treated properly in the future.
It might be claimed that stopping the night before would disturb badgers just when they wish to come out for foraging and feeding. However, in the winter the stopping will mostly be done before it is dark. Disturbance to the badger is therefore absolutely minimal. It would be much worse for the badger if many holes had to be left unstopped because the earth stopper could not get round in the morning. If foxes then run to ground, there is risk of much more disturbance if they must be got out. If the sett showed signs of current use or was protected, the fox could not be removed. That would not be satisfactory to the farmer or keeper concerned who may well resort to another legal form of control such as night shooting or snaring which would leave the badger far worse off, as has happened in Northern Ireland. For those reasons a practical earther-stopping code is necessary. The amendment would clear up the small remaining problem with Clause 3.
It is late to bring forward the amendment, but I showed it to the coalition—the proposers of the Bill—on Tuesday and they have had time to look at it. If I may put the opposition's case, as it were, the reasons against the amendment were, first, that the proposers of the Bill felt that they had already conceded too much and, secondly, that they felt that it would cause extra disturbance to the badger. There is no extra concession in this issue because the principle of earth stopping has been willingly agreed. It is already within the Bill. There would be no extension. Furthermore, that practice has been going on in hunting counties since time immemorial. It is just a continuation of an existing practice. A voluntary code would become a statute governed by law. It must be remembered that the largest concentration of badgers in Britain is in those very heavily hunted countries which are stopped most so, if it disturbed the badger, how come that is the place in which they thrive most?
I cannot force through the amendment at this late stage, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will appreciate that those of us involved in country sports and farming have gone a long way down the route—further than we have ever gone before—to get the legislation on the statute book and we are keen that it should be put on the statute book.
So far the Bill has proceeded with good will on all sides and much hard work has been done. I ask the noble Lord to extend that goodwill just one iota further. I think it would behove him to do so. It would gain the support of noble Lords and would put a nice seal on the atmosphere in which this Bill has been debated. It would show those who have come a little further this time that the noble Lord appreciates it and that the proposers of the Bill appreciate it. I too would appreciate it very much if he were to accept this amendment at this late stage. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may speak before the noble Lord replies. I listened carefully to the explanation but I am still not quite clear why he needs this amendment. The noble Lord went into some detail, but did not make that clear. He did not say whether it is to help those people who hunt badgers —naturally we are not enthusiastic about that—or whether it is to help the badgers. Before we go any further, perhaps he would explain in simple terms for those of us who are not hunters or do not live in the countryside and roam about with large dogs—people such as myself who believe that sport is a different activity, like playing football or tennis—the reason for covering the badger's house. After all, I presume that we are dealing with that. It is all very well to ask for goodwill, but on whose behalf is it requested? Is it on behalf of the badgers?
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness. First and foremost, what she regards as sport I would regard as a game. But that is neither here nor there.
The answer to her question is that it has been the custom and the practice for many years—indeed, long before I was around—on the day before a hunt or on the morning of a hunt to go around and stop up the holes (the badger holes, the fox holes or the rabbit holes) so that the fox does not go to ground and must then be dug out. It affects the badger because the fox often does not distinguish between one hole and another. The fox may go down the badger sett. Obviously, if he does that the hounds will "mark", as it is called, around the hole. That will disturb the badger, although it is permitted within the legislation as it stands at the moment. If the badger sett is ineffectually stopped, there is a great likelihood that the fox will go into it. The fox and the hounds marking the sett will disturb the badger if it is there.
This amendment will allow to continue a practice that has gone on for years. Some noble Lords do not like hunting—I cannot think why—and may not approve of it. But the practice to which I referred has gone on for a very long time. It has gone on without injury to the badger. Indeed, fox hunters are very keen that the badger and his sett should be protected. That would be very much more difficult to do without this very simple amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am in a difficulty. I might as well be frank about it now. It is a matter of communication and consultation. This further amendment was tabled this morning. I do not know why we have this situation and feel that it must be owing to the very nature of the problem with which we are dealing. Previously I complained about an amendment that had been tabled on the morning of a debate. I am not complaining now; I simply say that we have this situation.
I was consulted about the amendment this morning and after lunch. After discussing it with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I consented to it. It was again discussed later in the day and I again expressed my feeling that, much as it might be disliked, I had

749
throughout been willing to go to any reasonable length to obtain agreement and good will. I am now in some difficulty. When I consulted my adviser, Mr. Bryant, who has been the co-ordinator of the so-called coalition, he felt that this was quite a serious matter and that I might be in danger of not being able to carry the coalition with it. It might upset leisure groups all over the country and lead to a considerable amount of internal difficulty.
It may be that I take either a more lenient or a more ignorant view of what is done to badgers in the countryside. I did not feel that the situation was as bad as it is now said to be in my advice. I might add that the whole process of stopping-up is repugnant to a great many people. They feel that it is absolutely unsporting and interferes with the lifestyle of another species, and so on. I do not wish to argue that point. But many people are deeply against it because it conflicts with their sense of what should be humane treatment of animals. After all, the process is a step taken to maximise the sport of the hunters. They want to prevent escapes into badger holes, which would rob them of their quarry and send them back to the covert to get another fox; so the day's sport would be spoilt.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, just said, I was assured that it is the practice at the present time, but I am not fully informed of its extent. I am a trusting chap and when the noble Lord told me that with all the skill of a car salesman (not a second-hand car salesman) I fell for it. Now I am in danger of finding myself in difficulty. If this amendment is sent to the Commons and there is a revolt there, goodness knows what might happen. It is not what we wish. Certainly it would not do me any good if I were reported as having consented to it and fallen in with the wish of the noble Lord only to be repudiated at the other end. Noble Lords can see that I am not fit to be the commander of this enterprise. However, I must try to rescue the situation.
It is unfortunate that this matter was not considered by the coalition when at the Home Office dealing with the other matters upon which agreement was reached. I believe that it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to members of the discussion party on the pavement after they left the meeting. But the matter was not formally considered by the group and it has not been possible for the group to discuss it. So I probably exceeded my authority and took a risk which I ought not to have taken. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in a way failed to keep his back clear from being hit from behind because he was with the coalition and took a leading part in the discussions at the Home Office. We ought to have had this matter out that morning.
I have no experience of what happens because my badgers are not on land which is used for hunting or shooting. But we have to deal with a charge that if badger setts are stopped up in the afternoon before the hunt the badgers will be obstructed from coming out of their setts that evening. They might be kept under ground if the stopping-up is effective. Cubs might be in need of food but the parent badger would not be able to get out. I stand to be corrected on that matter. Alternatively, if the badger is out, it will not be able to
750
get back in. We have to clear up this question of whether the disturbance that may be caused is more than is reasonably acceptable.
Finally, we may not make progress on the amendment before I have to appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw it and suggest that we consider it again before Third Reading, sad as that may be. It is no good my putting noble Lords or myself into an impossible position. We have done well so far. We have had goodwill and understanding. Many congratulations are due to all concerned.
However, I must reserve my position. Without going back on what I said, I am not free to promise that what I agree to will be confirmed by those who have responsibility for the public verdict on the Bill. I leave that problem for the moment before your Lordships. I may have to ask leave to make another statement later. It is an unfortunate development. It is a good thing that it occurred at the beginning and not at the end of the debate. If we can overcome this difficulty we shall have overcome all the humps in the Bill. I do not want the basis of our agreement and the goodwill that has been established to be scattered by a feeling that we have been let down in the end.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord on certain points that he raised. He referred to the problems that the provision might cause to badgers getting in or out of a sett after the stopping-up and until it is unstopped on the subsequent day. On moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Mancroft made it clear that the amendment applies only to the first part of Clause 3. That does not mean that badgers cannot get in or out. The Bill provides for stopping-up by,
"untainted straw or hay, or leaf-litter, or bracken or loose soil placed in the entrances on the day of the hunt",
or the afternoon of the previous day. That method of stopping-up would not prevent the badger from digging itself out and returning to the sett if it wanted. It would isolate the unstopped hole to the one from which the badger had come. The badger would not in any way be prejudiced.
Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on other points. I believe that the amendment makes Clause 3 more effective. He has agreed and accepted that provision. It helps the control of foxes and in no way prejudices the badger. Clause 3 has been accepted. I believe that the amendment makes the clause a little more effective. It is right that the amendment should be added. Clause 3 having been accepted, it would be a pity if it were only partially effective because the right to stop up a sett on the afternoon of the previous day had been omitted.
I believe that the badger will in no way be prejudiced by acceptance of the amendment. I understand the noble Lord's difficulty. However, I hope that he will be able to agree to my noble friend's amendment, which I support.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have not previously spoken on the Bill and had not intended to do so. However, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is such an old friend that I should like to do my best to put his mind at rest.
He is against stopping-up. The amendment limits stopping up and therefore I very much hope that he will see the advantage of it. That advantage is not diminished by the fact that the amendment appeared on the Marshalled List only today as a starred amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, seems to justify the amendment by saying that it might be inconvenient to do the work. That seemed a large part of his argument. Perhaps there could be a compromise by stating that what is necessary for the hunt or for the protection of the badger is far more important. Perhaps we can discuss the issue at another stage. The convenience of those who wish to hunt seems to take precedence over the protection of badgers. That appears to be the argument presented. I hope that we shall have an opportunity at least to clear the air and ensure that the protection of the badger is given priority.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I used to hunt quite a lot. No one likes digging foxes out, but one has to do so because one hunts with the objective of killing foxes. I agree that there are many ways of killing foxes, some of which are extremely unpleasant—for instance, poisoning, snaring and shooting with a shotgun. Many foxes are peppered by shot from people using shotguns. I have never shot a fox with a shotgun. I have shot foxes in Germany with a rifle, but that is quite different.
I have badgers in my park. They are most delightful animals and fascinating to watch if there is a full moon. However, we are discussing a difficult problem. One of the objectives of a hunt is to keep down the number of foxes. From my experience no one who hunts likes the digging out process. It is not done for sport. The fox usually gets away during the chase anyway. But how does one control foxes apart from snaring or poisoning? One can shoot foxes at night with a high velocity rifle with a silencer. The fox is attracted by a lamp—keepers use that method a great deal.
Perhaps I may branch off somewhat on the subject of badgers. For quite a few years government have been the real villains—I refer to government as a whole and not to the different parties which have been in power—because over 20,000 badgers have been killed by government since scientists believed that badgers gave tuberculosis to cattle. That was done to a great extent in the west country. I believe that the number was over 20,000; but that is immaterial. On three or four farms around us the cattle did not pass the test for tuberculosis. I was surrounded by farms at which the cattle had to be burnt. However, my Jersey herd never suffered from tuberculosis. I no longer have cattle; I used to have a great many.
752
I am glad that the scientists have stopped killing badgers. The scientists, as if often the case, were in the wrong. My experience of hunting is not as great as that of some people, but I have hardly ever seen a badger killed. Obviously, we do not hunt badgers. On the whole hunting people are fond of badgers and do not like disturbing or killing them. However, when hunting foxes it is often difficult not to disturb badgers.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, during Second Reading I confined my speech to the importance of reaching agreement on the various issues in the Bill and co-operating to the best of our ability. It is most important to accept the amendment in that vein. I realise the difficulties of reaching total agreement in the light of all the issues before us. In Committee, on Second Reading and during the passage of the Bill in another place a great deal that is valuable has been achieved. Members in another place will again consider the Bill. We must relay the issues that have been foremost in our debates so that they understand that your Lordships are anxious that the Bill reaches the statute book. We should understand the difficulties and realise that we cannot have a perfect Bill. However, we should support this amendment in the general interests of the Bill.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the amendment emphasises the complications that can arise when we try to legislate on country affairs, and in particular on long-standing traditions. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, clearly, and not surprisingly, was concerned about stopping out the setts. However, Clause 3 already provides that one may not pack the hole hard: one must use soft materials. That will make it easy for the badger to work his way out. There is no risk of the badger being shut in. Of course, badgers come out after dark. My noble friend Lord Mancroft is most experienced in this matter but even he had not considered the problem. It is one that an expert has drawn to his attention.
I realise that we are rather rushing through the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will not consider that he is being pressured. I also hope that he realises that far from weakening the Bill the amendment will greatly improve it.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, as always we have had an interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised an important point. I may have over-emphasised the convenience of stopping. It is only convenient if it is done effectively; ineffective stopping will do no good to the badger. The object of the exercise is to prevent foxes going to ground in badger setts and therefore hounds going near them. Stopping is convenient only for that purpose.
As we discussed at an earlier stage, the principle of stopping badger setts is necessary not for the sport or the catching of the fox—we are not concerned with that in the Bill—but for the protection of the badger and his sett. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that the voluntary code of practice which has been in operation for some years becomes enshrined in law in the Bill. We have thought carefully about the Bill; we

753
have gone through it word by word to ensure that it will work. We have introduced a register so that people cannot stop unless their name is listed. No one can use it as an excuse for being near a badger sett when they should not be.
The amendment is not new. I did not introduce it at the meeting which my noble friend Lord Astor kindly chaired at the Home Office on Tuesday. That meeting was strictly reserved for another area of the Bill—licensing. I introduced it at length two days ago when the coalition was able to see a copy. That was a day before the main licensing amendment was published.
The amendment is simple and straightforward. A suggestion has been made that the words on the Marshalled List:
"after midday of the day preceding the day of the hunt"
should be changed to "before dusk". That could be breakfast time, lunch time or any time. The phrase is not sufficiently exact and I would not wish so loose a phrase to appear in the Bill.
In reality the provision applies only to large areas of ground where there may be 20, 30 or even 100 badger setts. It could be a field, or even two fields, where badgers get into the banks. Stopping would not happen often; in general, only in winter when badgers are hibernating. In those circumstances, whether their front or back door is open is wholly irrelevant; they are sleeping inside. Badgers wishing to come out of the sett but finding it stopped are capable of pushing out easily. As I said in Committee, it is my experience that if one planted a Chieftain tank above a sett the badger would be able to get out in about two minutes. We are not planning on doing that; we are planning on using loose soil and straw. The badger would not notice that and would go through it as it goes through undergrowth. We have tabled the amendment purely for the badgers' added protection from any disturbance that might be caused by hunting.
If I were to withdraw my amendment it would be necessary to table a Third Reading amendment. That would be a pity because it would delay the Bill further and I have no wish to do that. Neither do I wish to divide the House. We have succeeded in reaching this stage of the Bill without a Division. I have no doubt that if I were to divide the House I should win but I am loath to do so. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, can accept the amendment now and avoid all the problems for the future. It would be a pity to take the matter to a Third Reading debate but if the noble Lord insists, that is what we must do.
I see no movement from the noble Lord; therefore, I must test the opinion of the House. It is a pity to do so because I should have preferred the noble Lord to accept the amendment. It has support from all sides of the House. The noble Lord gives me no option but to ask for the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert:
754
("(k) for the purpose of controlling foxes in order to protect livestock, game or wild life, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and myself is as a result of the negotiations which we had earlier this week following an amendment brought forward in Committee by my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon.
The area in which we had the biggest problem as regards the Bill is that of licensing. That is a very important part of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, brought forward an amendment in Committee which very much put the obligation on the Ministry to grant licences, possibly more than would have been desirable.
Therefore, the badger coalition of which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—the sponsor of this Bill—is the front man, was opposed to that. However, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, gave a reassurance that he would accept the principle of the amendment but he wanted time to go into further detail. At that stage my noble friend Lord Swinton withdrew his amendment and we entered into negotiations. The result is the amendment brought forward today in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and myself.
Like most amendments it is not perfect. It probably does not go as far as my noble friend Lord Swinton would wish but probably goes further than the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and his supporters desire. However, it is a good compromise amendment. It allows the control of foxes by sheep farmers in Wales, the West Country and the Fell District and the control of foxes to protect game birds and other wild nesting birds. It allows those who have a concern in those areas to apply for a licence with a fairly good chance of obtaining one.
The anxiety of the Committee was that people would apply for licences but would not obtain them. We have not sought to put an obligation on the Ministry or on the Nature Conservancy Council but we have endeavoured to tighten up the area. Therefore, the amendment includes the words:
"A licence under this section shall not be unreasonably withheld or revoked".
That is a very important sentence. I believe that my noble friend Lord Astor will confirm that that almost imposes an obligation on the licensing body to grant licences provided that it is assured—and this is very important—that the right sort of people obtain the licences.
Whereas my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, were keen to make sure that the right people are able to obtain licences, equally it is important that the wrong people do not obtain them. That is why we have tabled the amendment. It is obvious that those people convicted under wildlife legislation of cruelty to animals or, indeed, under the Badgers Act 1973, should not be able to obtain licences and we must ensure that they do not do so. I believe that this amendment will achieve that objective

755
and at the same time ensure that those who should have licences will be able to obtain them. I hope that it will relieve the anxieties of the Moorland Gamekeepers' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association all of whom have approached us with anxieties as regards this area of the Bill. We have sought to address those anxieties. I hope that the House will accept the amendment in preference to that in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinton.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for moving the amendment. I shall not pull his leg about the fact that it was tabled only this morning. I thank also my noble friend Lord Mancroft for speaking to it and for his hard work. I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for what he has done because I know how hard he has worked.
The amendment goes a long way towards covering the points which I wish to see covered and I shall not repeat what I said in Committee. However, I have one or two important questions which I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, anxieties have been expressed by a number of organisations including the Moorland Gamekeepers' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association. Will it be certain that applicants can obtain licences well in advance of the period for which they may be needed since there may be occasions when there is not time to apply for and obtain a licence? I cited such occasions in my speech in Committee.
Will the licences be valid for a long period? I believe that they should be valid for at least a year so that proper fox control can take place. Also, will they be granted at any time of the year? I hope—this is very important—that even though they will be granted in advance, I trust that licences will be granted swiftly so that there will be no long delay.
If my noble friend on the Front Bench can give me satisfactory answers to those points I shall support the amendment and in due course not move my amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken during the course of the Bill I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mancroft and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on having got the two sides together. I hope that an amicable compromise has been reached and that the Bill will have a successful passage. It is also appropriate to say how grateful we are to my noble friend Lord Astor for the way in which he has brought both sides together and tackled the problems in such a masterly fashion.
With these two amendments we have reached a stage where it is obvious that we must work together in trying to solve the problem of fox control because, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said in Committee, foxes undoubtedly occupy badger setts from time to time. Obviously a sensible licensing system would appear to be the most appropriate solution for solving the problem. At the same time, that will ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book.
756
I believe that the need to control foxes is sometimes underestimated. It is obvious to many of us who have occasion on moorland areas to distinguish between a keepered and non-keepered area that there is a marked difference not only in quantity but also as regards variety of species. It may be interesting to note also that the Game Conservancy national game census has shown a five-fold increase in foxes in the uplands since 1960. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Moorland Gamekeepers' Association is keen to see the introduction of a licensing system. Incidentally, it may interest your Lordships to know that in eastern England there has been a three-fold increase and in south-east England a six-fold increase. I am delighted to say that the numbers of badgers are also increasing. In the uplands it is not unusual to find a badger sett of 1,600 or 1,700 feet. Those badgers live in setts, thus increasing the problems caused by foxes using them.
It is vital that the system should not be cumbersome. As my noble friend Lord Swinton said, the licences must be valid for a reasonable duration of time. They must be easy to obtain and must be for bona fide people so that we do not undermine the principles of the Bill.
As I see it, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinton is the more stringent of the two. It states that a licensing authority "shall" grant licences to any authorised person. I imagine that the word "shall" is the word to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, objects. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Swinton's amendment has the advantage in that it says that a licensed person shall not damage a badger or a sett. However, it does not differentiate between livestock and game birds. As I understand it, there is a legislative distinction between the two in that MAFF has the authority to issue licences for livestock but not for game birds. That comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment, and in most cases the application is referred to English Nature or its parent bodies in Wales and Scotland.
A problem may exist. I spoke to the chief executive of English Nature who assured me that he does not see this as a conservation problem; it is a problem of resources and manpower. I can see that if English Nature were inundated with licence applications, that could cause a problem. I believe in most cases it will not. I suspect that the individual applying for the licence will include livestock and game. However, there will undoubtedly be times when the licence will only cover game and there could be a problem for the various nature conservation authorities.
Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench could help me on one point. I imagine that MAFF is not able to take on the licensing responsibility. It would be more effective if it could. If it cannot, perhaps the Department of the Environment can do it without passing on the responsibility to English Nature and the other two authorities in Scotland and Wales.
I believe that the key to the licensing system is the guidance likely to be issued by the Home Office. If it is well constructed and well thought out, I am sure that it will be effective and the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be workable and

757
sensible. I am advised also that there will be a reasonable consultation period. That is imperative if the legislation is to be effective.
Like my noble friend, Lord Swinton, I should like to pose a number of questions to my noble friend Lord Astor. First, it is important that reputable people other than farmers—gamekeepers, hunt officials and members of fox destruction societies—are granted licences. Secondly, will such people be able to obtain licences without excessive argument as to whether fox control or interference with a set is necessary? Thirdly—I believe my noble friend Lord Swinton mentioned this—I hope that licences will not be constrained simply to the springtime. That would be totally impractical. Fourthly, will licences run for a suitable duration of time? For example, will they run from year to year? Will they be obtainable and renewable without bureaucratic delay?
I am sorry to burden my noble friend with a further array of questions, but they are of enormous importance if the licensing system is to be effective.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I too am grateful that these consultations have taken place and various noble Lords have come up with these alternatives to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and myself. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I still prefer our amendment but throughout this has been a matter of compromise. A good job has been done and covers at least some of the points raised at Committee stage.
The question of licences has now been fully covered and thy points I intended to make have already been made by the noble Earls, Lord Swinton and Lord Peel. Therefore I shall leave that aside. The only matter on which I should like to ask for guidance is that, as I read the amendment, rabbits seem to have dropped out of the question. They were covered in our amendment and I spoke in that regard at Committee stage.
Will it be possible to obtain licences if there are a number of rabbits in the vicinity of a badger sett? That is an important point. I shall not go through all the arguments about rabbits again and the difficulties that arise when they are close to a badger sett. But it is something on which I should like guidance.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill on which the Government are neutral. We seem however to have reached the point where the main difficulty on the Bill is concerned with licensing. That is an area which involves the Government, since the Government are responsible for the arrangements concerning the issue of licences. As I understand it the problem is to ensure that existing legitimate activities of fox control to protect sheep, other livestock, poultry, game and wild birds, can continue.
We have before us today two amendments both of which are designed to achieve that. I believe that we would be able to operate a satisfactory licensing system which meets your Lordships' anxieties under the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I do
758
not feel the same confidence about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, and my noble friend Lord Swinton. I should say, however, that I am grateful to the noble Lords for bringing this important point to the attention of the House. 1 hope that what I have to say on the question of licensing will be of some reassurance.
Since Committee stage, we have held meetings with both sides and the Government offered help in the drafting of a suitable amendment. I believe that a licensing system set up under the proposed Section 9(1)(k) of the Badgers Act would meet the anxieties expressed regarding the issue of licences, and satisfy the spirit of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon. Perhaps I may explain how such a licensing system might work.
First there is the question of to whom the licences will be granted. The legislation does not specify who may or may not receive a licence. Clearly we shall not be in the business of issuing licences to badger diggers. We need to be confident that anyone authorised to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of fox control is suitable and responsible. That would include gamekeepers, farmers, hunts, fox destruction organisations or any other suitable person. I hope that satisfies the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peel.
Then there are the circumstances in which licences will be issued. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, introduces the concept that licences shall not be unreasonably withheld or revoked. It goes without saying that licensing authorities should act in a reasonable manner. But I hope the amendment provides reassurance to those who have expressed doubts over this. We envisage that licences would be issued, in advance and for a prolonged period, where regular fox control for protection may risk occasional interference with a badger sett. I believe that was an anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Swinton. We would of course retain the right to revoke such a licence if a problem arose. We also envisage assessing in advance of lambing the position of sheep farmers whose flocks are at danger from foxes living in badger setts, so that licences may be issued speedily when the need arises. Licences will not necessarily be restricted to a single sett, although they will relate to a specified area, and that area could include a number of farms.
I have been asked in what circumstances a licence would not be issued. That is not an easy area in which to generalise. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that cases may arise which I could not possibly foresee at this moment. But two examples of situations when a licence might be refused are, on land where a scientific study of badgers is being undertaken or where disturbance might be caused to the nest of a breeding bird protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Licences granted under that provision would not be for the taking or killing of badgers. That is an important point as we are discussing the control of foxes, not licences to take or kill badgers. That is an area already covered by the present Act. I would, however, expect a condition of the licence to be that the person authorised should take reasonable care to

759
avoid causing harm to a badger. The licence might also specify just what may, or may not, be done to a badger sett; for example, the sett should not be destroyed and any accidental damage to a sett should be rectified as soon as possible.
Under the present Act there are different licensing authorities for different situations; in some cases they are the agriculture departments; in others, the now separate components of the Nature Conservancy Council. The same principle would apply under the amendment we are now considering. But that does not mean that different standards would apply. It is the intention of the licensing authorities to work together to set up common guidelines for issuing licences. That was a point raised by a number of noble Lords this evening. Our aim is to develop a system which is simple, straightforward and just. In doing that we will consult interested organisations. We will consider which licensing authority will be responsible for the different areas of licensing. In principle the agriculture departments will issue licences relating to livestock and the Nature Conservancy Council will issue licences with regard to wildlife. There may be some situations where these areas overlap. During the consultation period we will work with interested organisations to define exactly in which circumstances the licensing authority would issue licences.
It is important to all concerned that the administrative arrangements should be properly worked out. For that reason I am pleased to see it is proposed that three rather than two months should be allowed after Royal Assent before the Bill comes into force to put these guidelines in place.
I now turn to some of the points raised during the debate. My noble friend Lord Swinton asked when licences would be issued. There is no reason why licences should not be granted at any time of the year. As I have said, we intend to establish administrative procedures which will enable licences to be granted speedily. My noble friend Lord Peel asked about guidance. It will not be issued by the Home Office, but it will be developed by agricultural departments, English Nature and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents. We expect the vast majority of the licence applications to be to the agricultural departments and not to English Nature or the Scottish or Welsh counterparts. The amendment does not in fact specify which licensing authority shall issue which licences. Where licences are issued by agricultural departments I do not expect English Nature to be consulted on every application, but on the general procedures. Once the amendments became known, we have consulted at the earliest possible stage with English Nature and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents.
Earl Peel: My Lords, it is not the actual consultation between MAFF and English Nature that concerns me; it is whether English Nature is to be responsible for issuing the licences. If there were a number, that would obviously have a very serious effect on its budget and manpower.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I have said, we believe that English Nature will be concerned only
760
with issuing licences when they concern wildlife. We feel that that will be a very small amount compared with the number of licences issued by the agricultural departments. English Nature has a licensing function at the moment under the Badgers Act. One must remember that the Bill creates a new offence and a new licensing system for the control of foxes. That will involve extra work for both MAFF and the agencies. But if the Bill becomes law they will have a statutory duty to do that work.
I now turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, regarding rabbits. Licensing provisions will allow licences to be granted in relation to rabbit control if that work needs to be done. I hope that that answers the point which the noble Lord raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("ff) after subsection (2) (b) there shall be inserted—"
(c) in the case of a licence under paragraph (k) of that subsection—

(i) in England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Nature Conservancy Council for England;

(ii) in Wales, the Secretary of State or the Countryside Council for Wales; and

(iii) in Scotland, the Secretary of State or the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland."").

On Question amendment agreed to.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert ("; and
(h) at the end of that section there shall be inserted—
"(6) A licence under this section shall not be unreasonably withheld or revoked".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Citation and commencement]:
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I do not wish to speak to it as such, except to say that this is probably the last time on which I shall address your Lordships on the Bill, as I suspect that we shall now require only a formal Third Reading. I do not think that I shall speak on Amendment No. 8 to be moved by my noble friend Lord Burton. I am sure that he will cover that quite adequately.
I hope that this important piece of legislation, which we shall probably complete tonight, will remove badgers from the political arena for some time to come. I believe that they will then be the most protected animal in Europe, if not the world. That is quite right because they are subject in some areas and at times to a type of cruelty which is not directed at any other animal. So it is right that we should have given them this extra protection.
In giving them extra protection life has been made more difficult for farmers, for the Ministry, as my noble friend Lord Astor has said, and for the NCC

761
and sportsmen. However, all those organisations and people are prepared to accept those difficulties in order to help the badger and to allow it to live without the fear (which it cannot know) of this particular type of cruelty; namely, baiting, which I hope we have made that much more difficult to do tonight.
The Bill was sent to us to revise. It was sent in what can be described as a loose form. When it completed its Third Reading in the other place honourable Members said that it should be sent to their Lordships' House to be tidied up. We have tidied it up. We have worked extremely hard. We had a full Second Reading and a long and careful Committee stage. Both sides of the House, the sporting and farming communities—the Moorland Gamekeepers' Association came forward at a slightly later stage—and the National Farmers' Union all discussed at length with the badger coalition how best to tighten up the Bill, make it more effective, and at the same time allow those who have to live, work and play in the countryside to do so without falling foul of the law.
The fact that the Bill has got this far—and I hope will now find its way onto the statute book—is a great triumph for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. We should not deny him that triumph. It has not been an easy route. He has been absolutely tremendous in the way in which he has led your Lordships' House down this difficult path. I am sure that there will now be such a valuable conclusion that we should have to look suspiciously on any further legislation, should it come to us n the future, and wonder whether it was not more politically motivated than it should be. We are convinced and have always been convinced that the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, are as pure a s anybody's motives could be. He is to be congratulated on that. He has championed these causes for many years both in your Lordships' House and in another place. Noble Lords and Members of another place appreciate that fact enormously. In turn, I hope that he and the supporters and sponsors of the Bill will appreciate that for the first time the protectionist lobby and the sporting lobby have come together. Let us hope that it is not the last time; let us hope that it can continue.
The Bill has gone through another place and is now going through this House in a tremendous spirit of good will. Let us hope that that, too, can be repeated. For a very small amendment my "few words" have been rather long-winded. I hope that the House will accept them in the spirit in which I have delivered them. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as this is the final amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate them on the way they have brought together all the interested parties and achieved agreement on their amendments. The Government are neutral on Private Members' Bills; but I have to say that I cannot be anything but impressed by the way the two noble Lords have achieved their agreement. I thank my noble friend Lord Swinton for bringing to
762
the attention of the House the issue of licences for the control of foxes. That is an extremely important issue and it was totally missed in another place.
As I said in Committee, I offered the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the Government's help in drafting amendments. He duly accepted that offer. On behalf of all noble Lords, I thank not only the parliamentary draftsman but the officials of the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. They have worked very hard to produce acceptable amendments for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and for other noble Lords. I thank my noble friends Lord Jeffreys and Lord St. John of Bletso for moving amendments on behalf of English Heritage. Indeed, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the various stages of the Bill. We even had the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, speaking on a subject on which he does not normally speak. I am sure that the Third Reading will be a formality. I am also sure that another place will give the Bill careful consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert:
("(3) This Act shall not extend to Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I congratulate those involved on the way the Bill has been gathered together and consolidated. It has been improved enormously in your Lordships' House. I shall not repeat the names of those involved as they have already been mentioned; but I congratulate them all.
I am worried about how little consideration has been given to Scotland. Neither the Scottish Landowners Federation nor the Scottish National Farmers Union knew anything about the Bill until I drew it to their attention, after which they were somewhat apprehensive, to say the least. They felt, as I did, that it would not be satisfactory for Scotland unless there was an amendment on licensing which at last we managed to secure today. I hope that that will satisfy the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Scottish National Farmers Union.
I was also surprised to be telephoned yesterday by the chief inspector of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He did not know about the Bill either. I am surprised that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals did not take the trouble to consult its Scottish wing. I discussed the matter with the chief inspector and I assured him that, provided we secured an amendment on licensing, things would be all right.
I am also anxious about the rapid increase in the badger population in Scotland. It is increasing at a tremendous rate. Whether it is because we do not have the motorways and vast roads that one sees in England, which appear to be the main destroyer of badgers, I do not know; but there appears to be little natural control. The only real control is when badgers run out of food and die of starvation.
Since we met in Committee (which was only six days ago) I have had two problems placed on my plate. When I got home one of my tenants telephoned me saying, "What am I to do? I understand badgers

763
are protected but they have eaten all my hens". I was concerned whether this was serious damage. If it was serious damage, the culprits can be dealt with. It is a question of that little word "serious". Furthermore, I received a message not long after that from someone on the West coast. He said, "What are we to do? We are losing lambs, and a badger is killing them". I asked how many he had lost, because it is again a question of the seriousness of the problem. We should at some stage address ourselves to the question of how serious is serious.
I fear that before long badgers will suffer a major disaster. We may see something similar to what happened in Sweden where foxes became very numerous indeed. They eventually contracted mange and now they are very rare in Sweden. They died a horrible, painful death. Badgers are probably too clean to contract mange. However, I have a horrible suspicion that something will happen—whether it will be tuberculosis or something similar I do not know. I cannot believe that badgers will not suffer a natural
764
disaster. They have no natural predator. Now that we have licensing I agree that the provisions of the Bill should apply to Scotland. Therefore, I shall withdraw the amendment unless any noble Lord has something to say.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, perhaps I had better put the Question first and then ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Amendment proposed, page 3, line 31, at end insert
("(3) This Act shall not extend to Scotland.").
Lord Burton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  ROSYTH NAVAL BASE: FUTURE
  ROSYTH NAVAL BASE: FUTURE
  MARINE INSURANCE INDUSTRY: REGULATION
  MARINE INSURANCE INDUSTRY: REGULATION
  MILK: DIOXIN LEVELS
  MILK: DIOXIN LEVELS
  SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEE: JURISDICTION
  SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEE: JURISDICTION
  IRAQ
  IRAQ
  INNOVATION IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY REPORT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
  INNOVATION IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY REPORT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE