Sitting of 2 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 9 May.

    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time, and committed.
    Mr. Speaker: As the next seven Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Sunday Observance
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with local authorities about Sunday observance.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): None, sir.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), in a recent referendum in Castlereagh, the people voted 4:1 in favour of the Sunday opening of municipal facilities? Does my hon. Friend agree that a law that is frequently broken and rarely enforced brings the
    416
    rule of law itself into disrepute and that the Shops Act 1950 should be amended to take account of the needs and opinions of the 1990s?
    Mr. Hanley: The Government have no proposals to change the Northern Ireland shops laws at the moment, but intend to keep the position under review in the light of developments in Great Britain.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the Sabbath is still a special day in Northern Ireland, which is welcomed by the vast majority of the people who live there? Will he assure the House that Sunday opening will not be imposed on Northern Ireland or on its local authorities and that this will remain an option for the local community?
    Mr. Hanley: Should any change be contemplated for Northern Ireland, consultations with the interested parties, including the district councils and, of course, Members of Parliament, will take place at the appropriate time. In the meantime, the law is the law.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that the law is the law, but how many breaches of Sunday observance have there been among shops in Northern Ireland? Should not this side of the United Kingdom put its house in order before it begins to interfere more in Northern Ireland, without consulting its people? Should not the ordinary people have a say in what is done on Sunday, which is a special day to them?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I am afraid that we do not have any information about the number of breaches of that law. It is almost impossible to tell. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that any change will be accompanied by wide consultation with all the parties concerned.

    Community Relations
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage business in Northern Ireland to promote community relations; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Government believe that it is vital for all sections of the Northern Ireland community to become involved in promoting community relations. I shall be meeting groups of business men and women over the coming weeks to explore what further steps can be taken by the business community to help to encourage greater cross-community contact, mutual understanding and respect and appreciation for cultural diversity.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the careful progress that is being made towards talks between the parties in Northern Ireland, he carries with him the best wishes not only of the House, but of all those who would like to see an end to violence and division in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I know that I speak for my right hon. Friend when I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. As he will be aware, the talks to which he referred started on Tuesday. I believe that they carry a large measure of goodwill both within Northern Ireland and beyond.
    Mr. Trimble: Is not one of the best ways to promote good relations in business to ensure that the true facts about the religious balance in employment are fully known? Does the Minister agree that the recent survey by the Fair Employment Commission showed that the global position within Northern Ireland is that there is no significant imbalance in employment? Inevitable rationalisation will follow the merger of the Trustee Savings Bank and Allied Irish Banks. Will the Minister ensure that it is done in such a way that a fair balance of employment is produced in the new firm?
    Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, he is asking questions which are important but which stray way beyond my responsibility and into that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question.

    Irish Constitution
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had recently with the Government of the Irish Republic regarding the removal of articles 2 and 3 from the constitution of the Republic.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): This is a matter which I would expect to arise during the talks upon which we have now embarked.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman can be reassured that the Unionist parties at least will raise the matter, even if the other parties do not. Does not his reply signify clearly that no request to remove those obnoxious articles from its constitution has ever been formally made to the Irish Republic? Will he confirm that removal of those articles was held out as a carrot in the early stages of the consultations about the Anglo-Irish Agreement but was soon lost in the mists when the agreement was signed, regardless of what the Republic wanted? Surely it is time that those obnoxious articles were removed once and for all.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman asks me about my conversations. I have said before in the House that I do not believe that the territorial claim in the Irish constitution is helpful. The hon. Gentleman would be surprised if, subsequent to my observation, others had not disagreed with me on occasions when the Irish Government and I met.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the Secretary of State heard or read the remarks about articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Irish Republic made by a Minister in the Government of the Irish Republic, Mr. Desmond O'Malley? Did the right hon. Gentleman find those words useful? Would he encourage other members of that Government to reach the same conclusion? When the Secretary of State next meets that Government, will he take that stand?
    Mr. Brooke: One of the virtues of the talks on which we are about to engage, is that they embrace not only the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland but the Government of the Republic, whose delegation will be made up of more than one party. Any number of different
    418
    strands of opinion will be brought to our discussions. I shall be surprised if any issue that anyone has ever regarded as relevant to this subject is not aired at some stage in our proceedings.

    Cross-Border Security
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
    Dr. Mawhinney: We continue to discuss with Irish Ministers measures to enhance security co-operation and, in particular, to reduce the threat from terrorism faced by vulnerable individuals and communities in the border area. Where improvements are possible, both Governments are committed to securing them.
    Mr. Townsend: I recognise that communications between the two police chiefs have greatly improved in recent years, but is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done on the military front in terms of liaison officers, joint patrols and procedures for hot pursuit? Will my hon. Friend comment on the recent leaking of high security documents from the Garda, which unfortunately found their way into the hands of the IRA? What talks have taken place with the Garda about that matter?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point up the good relations and standard of communication between the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and the Garda commissioner. It is clear to all that security relations between the two have improved considerably and are good, but that does not mean that they cannot be improved. Both Governments are committed to seeking that improvement all the time. The leaked document was clearly a matter of concern. That concern was relayed to the Irish Government. We were happy that they shared our concern and moved immediately to set up an inquiry under a senior officer. We have asked to be informed of the result of that inquiry when it is available.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Minister aware that on the occasion of the removal of two permanent vehicle checkpoints—PVCPs—in county Fermanagh, it was necessary, because of the high level of threat from the IRA, to have 500 extra troops brought into Northern Ireland to protect those who were dismantling the checkpoints? Is he further aware that it was disgraceful that as soon as the checkpoints were dismantled and my constituents were left more open to attack from the IRA, those 500 troops were withdrawn? Was not that a betrayal of the people in my constituency and an abrogation of the responsibility of the British Government?
    Dr. Mawhinney: No, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it was a betrayal of his constituents. He has been assiduous in representing their best interests, and I am happy to acknowledge that. For our part, we too have been seeking co-operation with the security forces to ensure that the people have the framework of peace and stability to which they are entitled. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's question is that the departure of the troops after the two PVCPs changes was not a reflection on security policy, because the

    419
    suggestion was that they were there to do a specific job. General security is a matter of continuous review and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take it most seriously.
    Mr. Kilfedder: As every terrorist atrocity further divides the community, will the Minister point out to the Dublin Government that to develop a rapprochement between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, they must take much more effective measures against the IRA operating along the border, and secure their side of the border if the people alongside it and elsewhere are to live in peace?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Those matters are constantly under review and attention is paid to them by us and in our discussions with the Irish Government.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister realise that the people along the border in my constituency are living in absolute fear for their lives? Many of the attacks on the Castlederg area have been made by people who have left the Irish Republic, in which they have found a safe haven, have done their dastardly deed and have gone right back into the Irish Republic. Does he realise that nothing has hindered them in any way, certainly no action by the southern authorities?
    Concerning the leaks that have already cost the life of one of my constituents in Castlederg, is the Minister aware that we are alarmed at the improved relationships between the Garda and the IRA? Does he accept the inquiry which, it has been suggested, is sufficient? I assure him that the people in my constituency, who are living in fear for their lives, will not accept the inquiry that has been set up in the Irish Republic and that nothing but a full independent inquiry will be accepted.
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is recognised that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents have suffered greatly in recent years, as have the constituents of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I am satisfied that the inquiry will be full and rigorous. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in not condemning it, at least until we have received its report.
    Mr. Hume: When discussing matters of this type, will the Minister remind the House, and particularly some of those who have been asking questions, the facts about from where violence comes? Will he confirm that virtually 100 per cent. of all people convicted of acts of violence in Northern Ireland are from Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman says, most of the violence in Northern Ireland is generated within the Province. Moreover, the terrorist organizations—both the Provisional IRA and the Loyalist paramilitary—:bear the responsibility for the death and destruction that take place in the Province. They must be called to account, both legally and morally, for their actions.

    Security
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were (a) killed and (b) injured as a result of terrorist incidents in the month of April 1991.
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.
    Mr. Brooke: Since I answered a similar question on 14 March, 12 people have been killed as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, 10 of whom were civilians and two members of the RUC. Of those 12, seven were killed during the month of April, five of them civilians. In that month, 38 people were injured in incidents directly related to terrorism.
    But for the constant vigilance of the police and Army, those figures might have been even higher. I know the House will join me in praising the brave men and women of the police and Army, who daily put their lives at risk to protect the whole community.
    Mr. Taylor: The figures that the Secretary of State has just given are alarming because they confirm the apprehension of people in Northern Ireland that there has been a considerable increase in terrorist killings in the Province. Does the Secretary of State accept that the IRA has increased its campaign of killing because of the progress towards internal talks in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that it is likely that it will further increase its violence during the period of those talks? If he accepts those fears, what will he do to improve security during the 10 weeks of talks?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that the right hon. Gentleman will share my view that one death is one death too many. I agree that the statistics that I read out are dire, but the House will wish to condemn any death as a result of violence. As for his suggestion that there has been a rise in violence, I fear that that rise has occurred on both sides of the community. Some people might think that it has some relationship to the talks in which we are engaged. Warnings have been issued about the possibility of a heightening of violence because of the talks. However, I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that my security advisers are apprised of that and have every intention of ensuring that the security level is appropriate during the talks process.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that one overall objective in common that may transcend any differences that may arise from the talks that began this week is how to put an end to the violence and how to achieve conditions in which the two communities can live peacefully? However, any headway in that direction may trigger an explosion of violence, as the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) warns. I should like, therefore, to press the Secretary of State a little further. What steps is he considering to allay the fears that there may be a collision between the security forces and the paramilitary as the talks progress?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern but I repeat that my security advisers, the Chief Constable of the RUC, with the General Officer Commanding acting in support of him, are fully apprised of the nature of the threat in which they will be engaged in assessing. There are ways in which one can raise the security level for short periods of time in an appropriate manner. If it is necessary to do so because of any threat of violence to the talks, that will be done. However, I hope that the resolution of those engaged in constitutional

    421
    democracy in the Province to ensure that those talks progress and bring the hope of which the hon. Gentleman spoke will itself be a deterrent to the men of violence.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Given the oft-repeated assurances of security co-operation between the two Governments, does the Secretary of State know of any good reason why the Irish army fails to protect the forces of the British Army from attacks launched from across the frontier, whatever the terrorists' nationality?
    Mr. Brooke: It is probably inappropriate for me to speak on behalf of the commissioner of the Garda because the matter is obviously outside my jurisdiction. However, it is perfectly clear from my conversations with the Chief Constable and the commissioner in the context of the conference, that there is common cause between both of them and both their forces against that threat. If, as the right hon. Gentleman implies, an attack is made on a permanent vehicle checkpoint, that is a matter of concern to the commissioner of the Garda, even if that attack comes from north of the border.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that terrorism feeds on myths and money? Can he report progress on the cutting-off of resources from abroad, and those from within that come from extortion and racketerring?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that my hon. Friend would not wish me to go into precise details, but, as a generalisation, the principal financial resources of the terrorists in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the community, tend to be generated in Northern Ireland—as a result of financial crime or racketeering—or in the Republic of Ireland or, I fear, in Great Britain. The amount of resources from outside the islands is relatively modest in terms of the total enterprise, which further encourages Her Majesty's Government to bear down on the terrorists' present sources of finance. If we can place our fingers on their financial windpipe, we shall have increased the likelihood of ending terrorism.
    Mr. Mallon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the widow and family of Mr. Fergal Caraher, who was killed in an incident at Cullyhanna at the end of last year, have been unable to obtain the autopsy report? Has not the family suffered enough already? Will the Secretary of State use his considerable influence to ensure that the autopsy report is made available to it immediately?
    Mr. Brooke: I want to express my appreciation to the hon. Gentleman for the assistance that he has given to people in his constituency to encourage them to come forward and give evidence in that case. If there are ways in which we can further that ability, I would support them.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: What proposals has the Secretary of State for the security of taxi drivers in the Province?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to draw attention to the repulsive series of sectarian attacks on taxi drivers—an example of terrorism at its worst. An urgent review of regulations is being conducted to ensure that any possible risk posed to drivers by Government regulations is minimised, consistent with public safety. Let us be clear that terrorists, not regulations, are responsible for the murder of taxi drivers.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has received from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary a request to increase the establishment of the force? When might the Chief Constable receive a response?
    Mr. Brooke: I can confirm that I have received from the Police Authority for Northern Ireland a request for a substantial addition to the full-time complement of the RUC and its reserves. That request is receiving urgent and sympathetic consideration and I am determined that there should be no undue delay in bringing the matter to a conclusion. I fear that I cannot today give a firm answer about when a decision will be reached. There are currently 12,778 members of the RUC, including the RUC reserve, serving in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the Secretary of State accept that we welcome his statement that security levels will be kept appropriate to the threat, especially during the talks? That must be important to all concerned. Does he agree that the partial ceasefire called by the paramilitaries would be much better received if it were to become permanent and complete; that the problems of Northern Ireland will be solved only by peaceful political means; and that only those who accept that view can make a positive contribution to the future of the island of Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: Of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the whole House would want the ceasefire to become permanent and to represent a renunciation of violence.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed an exceptional run on these important questions, but we must now get on.

    Northern Ireland Electricity
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The Government have published a White Paper and draft legislation. Work is progressing to schedule on the establishment of a regulatory regime, the drafting of contracts and the restructuring of the industry.
    Mr. Forsythe: Will the Minister confirm that the original recommendation of the Government's advisers, Rothschilds, and of Northern Ireland Electricity's advisers, Barclays de Zoete Wedd, was to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity as a single entity flotation with share ownership in the Province? Will he explain his unseemly haste in rushing this important matter through the House by an undemocratic Order in Council, against the wishes of the public representatives of Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: On the second part of the question, this is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a transferred matter. I hope that there will be a lengthy and full debate on it in the Northern Ireland Committee. Nothing will be decided over the course of the summer as a result of the current talks which would in any way affect what happens.

    423
    As for the hon. Gentleman's first question, there is no question of the Government's wanting to create a private monopoly out of a public one—the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made that point in comments reported yesterday. The Government are trying to produce in Northern Ireland a plurality—a mix—of sources of electricity generation which will give the people of Northern Ireland the most competitive price for domestic, commercial and industrial use.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister accept that the people of Northern Ireland are wholly opposed to the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity? Does he accept that it has more to do with political dogma than with reality? When all the people of Northern Ireland and all its constitutional parties are against the move, why do not the Government yield to the pressure from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: Does the hon. Gentleman want continued nationalisation? Does he want 50 per cent. overcapacity above maximum demand? Does he want 70 per cent. of generation in Northern Ireland to continue to depend on oil? One result of the nationalisation policy is that £93 million worth of equipment is sitting under tarpaulin. Until privatisation started to be discussed., there was no discussion of gas, little discussion of an interconnector and the lignite option had been put on one side. Has nationalisation worked for the consumer in Northern Ireland? The answer, as I am sure the people of Northern Ireland, looking at their bills, would agree, is no.
    Mr. Beggs: The Minister must be aware that the high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland cannot be blamed on the Northern Ireland Electricity service because it was his Department and previous Departments that approved the over-dependence on oil. The Minister knows very well that the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland could have been reduced by the completion of phase 2 of Kilroot, but that NIE has not had the money to proceed with it. As we are very concerned that the Minister's Department has spent £3·5 million in t he past two years on consultants' reports, £500,000 of which was related to the privatisation of electricity, will he tell us how much was spent on obtaining from consultants the report that enabled him to advance the privatisation proposals in their present form, which will never be accepted by anyone in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: When my right hon. Friend introduced our proposal the hon. Gentleman said:
    "Northern Ireland industry and Northern Ireland consumers have been crucified."—[Official Report, 20 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 289.]
    No doubt he said that in the context of the existing Northern Ireland Electricity service. The hon. Gentleman has criticised the management, the cost of electricity and the lack of a gas supply and he has spoken about the lack of the lignite option. However, he has had a Pauline conversion on the road to Lame and now wants a continuation of the existing system. That does not make any sense for the Northern Ireland consumer.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Over the years the Government have frequently castigated Northern Ireland politicians for not being able to get together and reach agreement on anything. Now that the constitutional parties represented in the House have reached agreement, should not the
    424
    Government reward them and encourage them to reach further agreement on other matters by withdrawing this contemptible measure?
    Mr. Needham: It appears that they have agreed to continue with a form of nationalisation, which certainly has not served Northern Ireland industry. Perhaps hon. Members should ask the workers at Harland and Woolf, Shorts, Montupet, Fruit of the Loom and Daewoo what they think about having to pay prices that are sometimes 30 per cent. above those large users in the rest of the country.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister's statement in reply to an earlier question was one of the most outrageous that the House has heard. I remind the Minister that it was his Government who refused to build a gas pipeline and to make money available for the development of phase 2 at Kilroot. There is widespread condemnation, not just by politicians but by all sections of the community in the Province, of the Government's proposals, particularly the specific proposals for the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. Will he at least think again about postponing any final decision until the constitutional talks have come to fruition and, we hope, reached a successful conclusion? In such circumstances, politicians in the Province would be able to make the final decision.
    Mr. Needham: I said to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) that nothing that will happen in the summer will in any way stop any new arrangement after that being the subject of a separate decision. However, that is no reason for us to stop seeking ways to make sure that the Northern Ireland consumer has as plural and as big a mix of sources as possible. I remind the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that in 1975 his Government gave permission for the purchase of equipment for phase 2 at Kilroot. Since then that equipment has sat under tarpaulins and, in any event, it would not necessarily reduce electricity prices in Northern Ireland. It excludes the discussion of matters such as interconnectors and a gas supply from Scotland. It was a typical example of a nationalised industry making a poor decision with bad planning and coming up with an option which, if it had excluded flue gas desulphurisation, would have been a dirty option to boot.
    Mr. Hume: The Secretary of State and his Ministers have made intensive and praiseworthy efforts to get agreement among politicians in Northern Ireland. When we do reach agreement, will the Secretary of State and the Minister encourage us to continue by agreeing with us, particularly on a matter that affects every home in Northern Ireland? We are against the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. What consideration do the Government give to the fact that all parties in Northern Ireland have asked for this matter to be reconsidered?
    Mr. Needham: I am sorry to repeat myself, but there is no question of what we are doing over the next few months altering our position. I hope in the next few months to persuade the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that the best way forward for his constituents and his business people is to go down the route that we propose. That route will give his constituents and investors much lower electricity prices and a much better service than those which they receive under the present nationalised regime.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 9, Mr. Bellingham.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that a point of order arises. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining because he has not been called.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that a point of order arises on that.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Other hon. Members have been called——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not have been called, but a member of his party was.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent measures he has taken to support small businesses.
    Mr. Needham: The Government remain totally committed to supporting small businesses primarily through the work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful reply. May I congratulate him on the excellent work that he is doing in the Province, which has the full support of so many of my hon. Friends. Can he tell the House about the role played by LEDU in supporting small firms? Does he agree that Northern Ireland will not solve its economic problems unless it has a thriving small firms sector and an enterprise culture that flourishes?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial that we have a successful small enterprise side to the economy. LEDU has so far opened 30 centres and has provided some 1 million sq ft of space for small businesses and over 2,000 jobs. Furthermore, today it has announced the figures for last year, when it promoted just under 7,000 jobs, which is 1,000 beyond its target. By all the statistics that we have, the Northern Ireland small business sector is doing extremely well.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that, welcome though the initiatives are to small businesses, they are doing absolutely nothing to halt the avalanche of job losses that we have seen this year? The Minister must recognise that nearly 2,000 jobs have been lost in the first four months of the year, with nearly 1,000 job losses being announced in the past week. Does he realise that unless there is a change in Government policy or in Government, or preferably both, there will be no substantial change in the employment position in the Province?
    Mr. Needham: The increase in unemployment in Northern Ireland from March 1990 to March 1991 was 0·4 per cent. compared with 66 per cent. in the south of England. The numbers in employment in Northern Ireland in the same period increased by 3,000 or 0·6 per cent., whereas in the rest of the country they decreased by 1 per cent. If we look at what small businesses are doing in the "Make Belfast Work" area, we see that they are more successful at reducing the numbers of the long-term unemployed there than elsewhere in the Province. All the economic commentators within Northern Ireland and
    426
    outside are pointing out that Northern Ireland is riding the recession better than any other region; we are very pleased about that.
    Rev. Ian Paisley rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I will call the hon. Gentleman, but would he like to choose between this question and question 10?
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I will take this one. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush, Mr. Speaker.
    How can the Minister mislead the House today by saying——
    Hon. Members: "Withdraw."
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that. A Minister does not mislead the House.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I will reword it. How can the Minister pretend to the House today that he is supporting small businesses when he knows very well that the cash which those small businesses are chasing comes from the larger employers and from the employees of the major industries? Is he aware that more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in Northern Ireland in the past few days? That means that those people will not be in a position to support new small industries. Is not he aware that there will be so much unemployment that all the small businesses will be in jeopardy?
    Mr. Needham: I accept that we have had job losses and I bitterly regret that, but at the same time we have a large number of companies in Northern Ireland that are continuing to employ people and taking on staff. For example, Shorts has taken on 1,300 people in the last year; Harland and Wolff has been taking on staff; Daéwoo has taken on staff; and Montupet is still recruiting. The hon. Gentleman does the economy of the Province no benefit at all if he tries to knock it and reduce confidence at a time when everybody accepts that it is doing better than any other part of the economy.

    Political Talks
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about progress in the talks with political parties.
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the results of his consultations relating to his initiative on political progress in matters relating to the Province.
    Mr. Brooke: As foreshadowed by my statement to the House on 26 March, formal political talks in relation to Northern Ireland are now under way. These talks have the potential to secure major improvements in relationships within Northern Ireland and beneficial changes to relationships among the people of the island of Ireland and between the two Governments. However, the process has only just started; a considerable amount of work lies ahead of all the participants and it is too early to assess the prospects for a successful outcome.
    Mr. Canavan: If it is the Government's intention to try to resurrect some form of Stormont Parliament, would not it be typical of the Government's double standards to continue refusing a Parliament for the people of Scotland,

    427
    who constitute a nation, while apparently agreeing to set up a Parliament for Northern Ireland, which consists simply of a gerrymandered collection of six counties?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that I find the final part of the question offensive to the people of Northern Ireland. Secondly, while the Government are playing a part in the talks, the four constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland will be playing a part likewise. The agreement that I hope will emerge will do so as a result of propositions, put forward from all round the table, on which I hope that we shall be able to find agreement.
    As for the central part of the hon. Gentleman's question, Government structures which are appropriate to Great Britain are not necessarily appropriate to Northern Ireland; and the same is, of course, true in reverse.
    Mr. Latham: Since my righ t hon. Friend has obviously very sensibly decided on a publicity blackout on this matter, may I simply express the hope that he will succeed where Gladstone failed and that his success will be rather greater and more popular than that of Lloyd George?
    Mr. Brooke: It will be a loss to the House when my hon. Friend hangs up his boots for the last time in terms of the historical insights into our affairs which he gives. I must say however, that in the affairs of Ireland I have no shortage of historical advisers.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    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.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local elections today should be about which party most efficiently delivers quality services at the lowest cost?
    The Prime Minister: They certainly should be and I hope that in the eyes of the electors they are. If they turn out to be so, I believe that the cost of each Labour councillor, which is very substantial, will be noticed by the electorate, who will vote accordingly.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with the British Medical Association's judgment that there is a crisis for patients and for doctors in the national health service and that, in its words,
    "The Prime Minister is unaware of what is happening throughout the country."?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I had a seminar with many leading figures in the health industry at Chequers on Saturday morning. It is an odd question from the right hon. Gentleman, who admitted over the weekend that there would be no more money for health under a Labour Government. The point which I believe that the BMA should consider is that it is improbable, with £30 billion going into the health service, that each and every one of those pounds is being used to
    428
    best effect. The purpose of our reforms is to ensure that that money is used to best effect on patient care so that the patient may get the best possible value for the contribution that he makes to the health service.
    Mr. Kinnock: With that response the Prime Minister not only proves his desperation in misrepresenting me, but proves the BMA's case that he really does not know what is going on in the country. The secretary of the BMA, Dr. Ian Field, reports that, because of the Prime Minister's so-called NHS reforms, hospital clerks are having to take life-and-death decisions about which patients should be admitted and which should be turned away. If the Prime Minister does not think that that is evidence of crisis, just what does he think would constitute a crisis?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the gentleman to whom the Leader of the Opposition has referred should have examined more carefully what is happening in many other parts of the country, quite apart from the general increase in NHS funding. For example, he might look at many of the trusts. In the case of North Western, no cuts are planned, and new staff posts are being created. The same applies to Mersey, West Midlands, Trent, East Anglia, Yorkshire and many other areas. It would be a great help to the national health service if people were to look at its achievements and its improvements, rather than carp, criticise and pick out difficulties that have always existed and, in an organisation of such size, may always exist.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister can be sure that the consultants and other doctors in the BMA are well aware of the qualities of the national health service. Indeed, they work in it continually and they support it continually. When they say that there is a crisis for patients and doctors in the NHS as a result of the Prime Minister's reforms, does not he think that he owes it to them, first, to meet them very soon and, secondly, to stop opting out and adding to the crisis?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said to the BMA in my letter, I will be prepared later this year to meet it to discuss the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to quote the BMA, let him recall that the association opposed many past improvements in the health service. It opposed the very establishment of the service, in which case it was wrong; it opposed the drugs list, in which case it was wrong; and, only last year, it opposed the GP contracts, yet, in GP Magazine,* it now says:
    "Suddenly, targets don't seem so bad after all … Most GPs will find themselves significantly better off … than they were last year."
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should examine that more carefully.
    Mr. Cash: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the draft treaty that the Luxembourg presidency has made available to only a very limited number of people—and certainly not to Members of this House—in the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend know that that draft treaty contains provisions that would result in a severe diminution in the powers of this House? Will he give us an assurance that, although we want to co-operate in Europe—we are pro-European—the proposals in this paper, which combine a reduction in the powers of the
    * See Mr. Speaker's statement on 7 May at column 625.
    Westminster Parliament with an increase in the powers of the European Community, are unacceptable in their present form?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have on a number of occasions made clear our position in both intergovernmental conferences. The document to which he refers is, as he has said, a draft treaty prepared by the Luxemburgers. It has not been agreed by us—indeed, it has not yet even been discussed by us—and we have put forward our own particular proposals for both intergovernmental conferences.
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Watson: The Government's proposed replacement for the poll tax promises 100 per cent. rebates for those on low incomes. Why will not the Prime Minister give an assurance today that the same principle will be applied to the nearly 6 million people who will remain liable to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax for at least another three years?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the 20 per cent. arrangement was introduced, income support was also introduced to compensate, to ensure that people had the resources to meet those charges. That remains the position.
    Mr. Jopling: Will the Prime Minister find time today to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that all advertisements are decent, legal and truthful—especially advertisements put in the press by trade unions on behalf of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: That would certainly be an improvement, if it happened. I join my right hon. Friend in condemning the advertisements to which he refers, with their phoney pictures and fake statistics. How similar that is to so much of what we hear at present from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Prime Minister accept that we are extremely interested in his addiction to seminars' if he comes to Scotland we shall arrange one, at which he can explain to the people of Scotland why he is proposing to introduce a tax that is theoretically less onerous and less regressive than the poll tax, while at the same time allowing a rebate of 100 per cent. How can he explain the persistence of the 20 per cent. rule for the poll tax, and how does he view the difficulties of Scottish local authorities, because he knows that the poll tax is uncollectable?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep. I answered that question two minutes ago.
    Mr. Burns: During his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the latest diktat from COHSE, which orders its members to campaign for the Labour party during the local elections? In the light of that
    430
    diktat, does he agree that nothing that the union says about the health service should be believed, because it is not objective and is politically biased?
    The Prime Minister: Given its past activities, I should be surprised if COHSE did not operate in that fashion, and that applies to NUPE as well. But, as the Leader of the Opposition gets so many of his policies from them, that is no surprise to any of us.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Does the Prime Minister agree with the chairman of the Conservative party, who has declared that all voters are jerks, or does he agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has said that they are all morons? Or does he agree with the majority of the British people, who say that senior Cabinet Ministers are a disgrace to the country?
    The Prime Minister: As none of those comments was made in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is nothing to withdraw.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still a Government priority for British business men and farmers, after the completion of the single market in 1992, to be able to compete on a level playing field with their Community competitors? If so, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and advise him not to impose on the pig industry financial burdens that our competitors on the Continent need not bear—especially the competition from Denmark and Holland?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly our intention to see a level market, not only in agriculture but in all matters of European trade. All my right hon. Friends are aware of that and act accordingly.
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sillars: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to a statement made recently by the housing convenor of the city of Glasgow? According to that statement, given the present level of capital consents it will take 300 years to cure the damp problems experienced by the people of that city. That was said seriously, not facetiously.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that the present level of damp in Glasgow poses a serious risk to the health of children in particular. Will he deliver to the citizens of Glasgow the same respite as his Government gave to the rich people who bought shares in privatised English companies? Will he wipe off the capital debt of the city of Glasgow and give the people there an opportunity to enjoy decent housing in a much shorter time than 300 years?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we would all like everyone in the country to have increasing access to decent housing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the past 10 years—across the country as a whole—there have been 2 million more homes, which is equivalent in practice to a city twice the size of Birmingham. He will understand the

    431
    extent of the improvements that have been made. As for the position in Glasgow, the way in which individual authorities use their housing receipts, their capital receipts and their revenue sums is a matter for them and they must determine what priorities they must meet.
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the horrific accident on the north Devon link road at 3 o'clock this morning when a van bound from South Molton was in collision with a minibus carrying several Icelandic tourists, three of whom are dead and six of whom are desperately injured? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as the tourist season begins, we need adequate police resources to ensure that there is safety on the roads, which is best ensured by a police presence?
    The Prime Minister: I was sorry to hear of that dreadful accident and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy to the families of those involved. As my hon. Friend will know, the Road Traffic Bill currently before Parliament will strengthen road traffic law and penalties. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will spend well over £6 million in 1991–92 on direct road safety campaigns in an effort to minimise the terrible accidents that we so frequently see, to an example of which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Prime Minister keeps making pious declarations about his personal commitment to the national health service, but is he aware that in my constituency Greater Glasgow health board has privatised care of the elderly? In other NHS hospitals there are to be en-suite toilets and bathrooms, but in that privatised hospital in my constituency there are to be communal toilets and bathrooms. When my frail and elderly
    432
    constituents are being herded like cattle to use those communal facilities, will this personally committed Prime Minister feel any personal sense of shame?
    The Prime Minister: Anticipating what the hon. Gentleman might touch upon, I looked at Greater Glasgow health board's record. It has, as the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention, awarded 58 contracts under competitive tendering arrangements and the resultant savings of £32·7 million will go directly into patient care. It has also entered into a contract with a number of people to provide more beds for care of the elderly. Greater Glasgow health board has a good record which the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: When my right hon. Friend comes to consider the route for the Channel tunnel rail link, will he look seriously at the alternatives to British Rail's proposal? Will he take the opportunity to meet the professional partners of Bechtel and Ove Arup to discuss with them the benefits of their route at first hand?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly look carefully at all alternatives. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will do that with great care.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: Given that the Secretary of State for Scotland opposed test drilling for nuclear dumps in his constituency and the Secretary of State for Energy, who is in charge of Nirex, opposed similar test drilling in his constituency, how can the Prime Minister justify permission being given for such test drilling in Dounreay, against massive democratic opposition locally and throughout Scotland? Is that a case of double standards?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision at this stage is only to test the boreholes for repositories for nuclear waste. If a borehole turned out to be satisfactory, there would need to be a further detailed planning application before any waste could be deposited.

Bangladesh (Disaster Relief)
3.33 pm
Mr. George Foulkes (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government assistance to Bangladesh following the cyclone disaster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We are making £2·5 million available for immediate disaster relief. Of this, £1·2 million represents the British Government's share of emergency aid of 10 million ecu from the EC announced earlier today. We shall consider possible further assistance once we have a clearer picture of what is required in this tragic situation.
Mr. Foulkes: Opposition Members would like to join in the many expressions of sympathy to those who have lost relatives, homes and possessions in this appalling disaster. I know that the Minister will join in that sentiment. These disasters occur all too regularly in one of the world's poorest countries.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the Government of Bangladesh are unable to deal with the consequences of the disaster without major outside assistance. From what the Minister has already said, I am afraid that I must say that the Government's response so far fails to match the scale of the disaster.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government will respond speedily and generously to all requests for urgent assistance for food, clothing, medicine and shelter, either directly or by grant aid to voluntary bodies? In the longer term, will he ensure that assistance is available to help with the reconstruction of industry and to help to replace the crops that have been destroyed?
Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office also now seek a substantial increase in its inadequate aid budget, which is already squeezed by the vital help to the Kurds and for the famine in sub-Saharan Africa, so that we can help properly with this major crisis and with the long-term consequences without affecting our other aid commitments?
Will the Minister also now give an assurance that he will talk to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and examine urgently the deployment of personnel and equipment from the Gulf and elsewhere to help with relief and communications, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others have called?
Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but this is a private notice question.
Mr. Foulkes: But the answer was inadequate, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, will the Minister recognise that the stricken people of Bangladesh, for whom we in this country have a very special affinity, need our help with the same commitment with which we deployed forces to liberate Kuwait? We demand that kind of commitment and those resources from the Government today.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can most certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's first comments. The British
434
Government send their sympathy to the acting President of Bangladesh and the Government in Bangladesh and to all the people who have suffered so miserably in this recent disaster.
However, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) went on to say one or two other things with which I must take issue. He said that our response failed to match the scale of the disaster. This is the immediate response of the British Government. The position is as yet extremely unclear. Of course it is a great disaster, but quite what the British Government will ultimately be able to do will be assessed in the light of developments and a full assessment of the situation. This is the speedy response that we are able to make now. Should emergency food be required in the next few days, it will of course be made available.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a large number of non-governmental organisations are operating in Dhaka and in the whole of Bangladesh. They will be able to assess the needs and report back to us and to help us to distribute aid as and when that is appropriate.
It should not be forgotten that this emergency aid is also made in the context of a very substantial aid programme for Bangladesh as a whole. We are currently giving £50 million a year and that is——
Mr. Foulkes: That is not relevant.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Well, it is relevant, because the hon. Gentleman asked whether I would ensure that we give aid to rebuild Bangladesh's industry and I make this point under that latter heading. We are currently giving £50 million-worth of aid annually in the context of £211 million-worth of aid over the past four or five years. That is our bilateral aid, and in the past five years we have contributed towards £117 million-worth of multilateral aid. Bangladesh receives the third largest amount of all our aid programmes. The Ministry of Defence matters will be reported to the MOD.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about Bangladesh and Britain having a special affinity. He has visited Bangladesh recently and so have I. He has seen the friendship and was able to observe the welcome political developments and the development of democratic institutions in Bangladesh, which only encourages that affinity and our desire to help in this tragic situation.
Mr. Toby Jessel: It is an appalling tragedy, which has happened within the past 24 hours and caused an enormous loss of life. Will my hon. Friend inquire about what sort of medical aid might be needed? In particular, will he ask whether stocks of cholera vaccine are available, which could be sent to Bangladesh? As his Department's records show, during the Bangladeshi crisis 20 years ago, at the time of its independence from Pakistan, there were 10 million refugees and a massive risk of cholera. This country supplied a great deal of vaccine, which saved a great many lives.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, that is something that the ODA will be most happy to assess, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. At present, communications with Bangladesh are extremely poor. It is impossible to make telephone calls from Britain to Bangladesh, and all communication is by telex and

435
telegram. We shall be taking advice from the large number of NGOs operating in Bangladesh, and especially in relation to my hon. Friend's point.
Sir David Steel: The whole House naturally feels that it is a terrible tragedy, and will support what the Government and the European Community have done. Is the Minister aware that there is an immediate need for collapsible and inflatable boats, and we should be able to help with that within the next 24 hours. In the longer term, will he reconsider the ODA's contingency fund, which must have been severely depleted by a succession of disasters? Armed with the Prime Minister's declaration of intent, will the Minister go back to the Treasury and obtain more funds for the ODA?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At this moment, the need for items such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is being assessed by ODA workers, as and when they can, and by NGO operators in Bangladesh. I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's second point, which is certainly something that must be considered.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in such a disaster, it is most important that there is full contact with the high commission in London? Does he further agree that the high commission's requests will probably be about practical matters, such as the provision of tents, medical supplies and, indeed, boats?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We shall certainly take advice from the high commission in London. However, it has grave difficulties communicating with its Government in Bangladesh—indeed, I suspect that its communications are not as good as ours. We shall certainly listen to any requests from the high commissioner.
Mr. Peter Shore: The House is shocked by the scale of the tragedy and by the terrible toll of human life that has already been exacted, with many more to come. The House will have noted, and perhaps appreciated, the Minister's initial reaction, but a much more forthcoming and generous reaction will be required as the details of the tragedy start to flow in.
I wish to put two specific questions. First, can the Minister tell us anything about the availability in the United Kingdom of collapsible boats and of medical supplies to deal with cholera and dysentery, to which reference has already been made? Are adequate supplies available? Secondly, for the longer term—this is riot the first awful cyclone to hit the bay of Bengal—what progress has been made with the Bangladeshi Government and others to erect more permanent coastal defences in the bay of Bengal and to build anti-cyclone shelters throughout the area?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's initial words. I reiterate that we are ready to consider further assistance. This is a first reaction, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to take note of that. I regret that I cannot comment today on the availability of collapsible boats, but officials who are listening to the debate will immediately investigate that when they leave the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on what the Government are doing to assist the Bangladeshi Government to deal with the perennial problem of horrific
436
floods in their country. In December 1989, the British Government hosted the donor communities attendance at the Bangladeshi flood conference. That resolved that the first stages of the flood action plan should include a rolling five-year plan involving studies and pilot schemes to investigate various means of controlling and alleviating the effects of floods and cyclones.
We supported, and very much promoted, studies in four different areas that included an examination of the effectiveness of previous flood control schemes and ways to improve them. Those reports will be available in due course, and we shall take what action we can in the light of them.
Mr. John Bowis: In welcoming the Government's swift and continuing response to this human tragedy, as announced by my hon. Friend, may I ask him also to remember that many thousands of members of the Bangladeshi communities in this country will have families who are bereaved or suffering at this time, and will he make the pledge to them that, although whatever can be done will be done for the people in Bangladesh, he will also support those communities through the high commission, the Bangladeshi welfare associations and other groups as much as possible with communications and with counselling?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This country has a large Bangladeshi community, and I know that my hon. Friend is in touch with many of its members. The social services will of course be available to help people in difficulty. The Government will almost certainly do everything they can to promote any help that may be needed by the members of that community in Britain.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Minister said that emergency food would be sent if necessary, but should not that food be sent straight away and not when it is too late? Why cannot the Government get the whole of their act together by, for example, galvanising the Ministry of Defence to send well-stocked helicopters and boats into the area to help its people now?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, those words will have been noted. The Government will assess what they should be doing in the light of all the available evidence provided to us by non-governmental organisations, the Bangladeshi Government, the high commission in London and anyone else who can give us help in that regard.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Although I welcome all the aid which is going to Bangladesh, I hope that the Minister will have an open mind about dramatically increasing the level of aid that is necessary to alleviate the terrible suffering in Bangladesh. However, will he also turn his attention to the basic economic problems of Bangladesh, such as that country's substantial foreign debt and the low commodity prices that it receives for its products? In the wake of this latest disaster for the people of Bangladesh, will the Minister see whether a new economic understanding can be achieved with that country that will allow the rebuilding of its economy and greater prosperity for some of the world's poorest people, so that at least something can come out of yet another awful tragedy for the people of Bangladesh?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the House knows, last year when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the Trinidad initiative at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers conference in Trinidad. That must have some bearing on the situation in Bangladesh. As I have already said, we already have a substantial aid programme to aid Bangladesh.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister had any contact with the Bangladeshi high commissioner, and, if so, has the commissioner given any indication of the sort of help from the British Government that would be most welcome? As the Minister knows that the British people are exceedingly generous in appeals to assist at a crisis such as this, he must be aware that if, as the Opposition have suggested, he were to ask the Treasury for money for the aid budget, that would be popular in the country as a whole. Does he agree that it is now time to think about getting something from the peace dividend and to establish a flexible response force from the military so that we can get aid quickly to those parts of the world that are all too often afflicted by such tragedies?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's latter questions. In response to his first question, officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration are in contact with the Bangladeshi high commissioner.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister will have noted the ovewhelming support in the House for the statement that he has just made. Does he accept that the view of the House is reflected in the minds of the British people, who would ask him and his hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to discourage some commentators from suggesting, as they did this morning on television, that there is aid fatigue? The British people are not mean-minded, and they expect the British Government to reflect their views. Therefore, in addition to what he has said today, will he encourage the Minister for Overseas Development to inform the Treasury that although, as we heard in the press this morning, it is seeking cuts, it has not been over-generous with her Department? Does the Minister agree that the crisis underlines an overwhelming need which ought to be met?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should have thought that the enormous response of the British Government to the tragic developments in the horn of Africa—aid for famine-affected Africa is £70 million since September last year—coupled with the enormous response of the British Government to the tragedy of the Kurds in recent weeks shows most clearly that there is no such thing as aid fatigue in the British Government when such disasters occur.

Business of the House
3.50 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): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

TUESDAY 7 MAY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill followed by progress on Committee stage of the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Completion of Committee stage of the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [Lords] followed by remaining stages of the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill.

THURSDAY 9 MAY—Proceedings on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill.

FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 13 MAY—Opposition Day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.

The House will wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 8 May at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents Nos. 4084/91 and 4548/91 relating to environmental protection.
European Standing Committee B will meet on the same day at the same time to consider European Community document No. 8597/90 and COR 1 relating to unfair terms in consumer contracts.
[Wednesday 8 May
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document

(a) 4084/91

Environmental Protection of Baltic, Irish and North Seas and of North-East Atlantic

(b) 4548/91

Environmental Expenditure

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 29-xii
(1990–91)
(b) HC 29-xvi
(1990–91)
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document

8597/90+COR 1

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 11-xxxiii (1989–90) and HC 29-xii (1990–91)]
Dr. Cunningham: Why does the Leader of the House persist in refusing, as he has done again for next week, to nominate a day on which the House can have the opportunity to debate the Government's public expenditure plans? We have been pressing for a debate on public expenditure for three months. A debate on these important matters is long overdue. The Government cannot indefinitely refuse the House the opportunity to debate public expenditure, even though they seek to hide their embarrassment about the recession and the deepening crisis that was reported again in the newspapers today. There have been reports of possible further cuts in the Government's proposals for investment in the public services. The House is entitled to a long-overdue

439
opportunity to discuss these matters. I urge the Leader of the House to find a day for a debate at the earliest opportunity.
There are reports in the press today that, having withdrawn its original proposals for a route from the channel tunnel to London, British Rail is about to make almost identical proposals, but this time for an overland route rather than a route partly underground. If the proposals are confirmed, they will cause widespread dismay in many communities in south London, Kent and elsewhere. May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that, if the plans are published and confirmed, the Secretary of State for Transport will come to the House and make an oral statement about the implications of the proposals for the many communities that will be affected? Finally, will the Leader of the House find an early day for us to debate the deepening crisis in the national health service?
It is clear that not only nurses, paramedical staff and unions representing workers in other occupations, in the national health service, but doctors clearly recognise that the NHS is in crisis. That is the view of the British Medical Association. Despite all the evidence, the Prime Minister is apparently impervious to the circumstances, which are causing widespread national concern.
We should have an opportunity to debate the situation in the NHS in Government time—the Opposition have already provided one of their Supply days for such a debate, so there can be no criticism of our determination to have the matter on the agenda—not least so that we can debate the implications of the formation of trusts and opt-out hospitals and question Ministers about why, for example, Ministers in the Welsh Office are writing letters to hospitals pressurising them to opt out of the NHS—[Interruption]—as a Minister in the Welsh Office has done recently. The public do not want the developments that are now occurring. Parliament wants an opportunity to debate the issues, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find time for us to do so soon.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of my refusing a debate on public expenditure. I want one—I have made that clear on a number of occasions—not least because it would be an excellent opportunity to contrast what we have achieved with the position of the Labour party on public expenditure. One reason why that cannot occur next week is clear. We have two days on the Finance Bill and. as the hon. Gentleman is aware, largely the same speakers would be speaking in a public expenditure debate as will be taking part in the Finance Bill debates. So there is a difficulty in trying to fit in everything immediately.
Dr. Cunningham: Many hon. Members who are interested in Finance Bill issues will be upstairs in Committee, anyway.
Mr. MacGregor: The Committee does not sit four days a week. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no embarrassment whatever on the Government side. We are very happy indeed to defend our position on public expenditure. It is just a question of having an orderly procedure on our legislation and finding the necessary time.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about British Rail's proposals is that we must wait and see what—as I understand the position from the papers this
440
morning—the British Rail board decides to do. After that, the proposals must go to my right hon. and learned Friend, who will obviously consider them. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for an oral statement when my right hon. and learned Friend has had a chance to do that—if I am right in my understanding of the position—and I shall communicate his request to my right hon. and learned Friend.
I totally reject the way in which the hon. Gentleman framed his request about the national health service. Our record is extremely good. He will know of the considerable increases in expenditure, of the excellent progress that has been made in the general practitioner area, and of the excellent ways in which the reforms are proceeding and he will have heard what my right hon. Friend said about, and the great interest he takes in, the NHS. There was a private notice question this week about two of the trusts, so there are plenty of opportunities for the issues to be debated. Because of pressure on the legislative timetable, I cannot promise, in Government time, a day to debate those matters in the near future.
Mr. John Marshall: Following Tuesday's decision by the Court of Appeal on the B and Q appeal on Sunday trading, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an early debate on the law in respect of Sunday trading? May we have an assurance that there will be a sense of urgency in the review that is taking place on Sunday trading, as many of us regard the present law as bizarre and out of date?
Mr. MacGregor: I know well my hon. Friend's views on those matters and I believe that next week he will pursue one aspect of them by way of a 10-minute Bill. Although the Government have not yet had an opportunity to study the judgment in detail, I understand that the Court of Appeal decided that a local authority seeking an interim injunction to restrain Sunday trading contrary to the Shops Act 1950 must, like any other body except the Crown, give a cross-undertaking in damages as a condition of the grant of the injunction. That was the court's position and I cannot comment on it further, as the matter may be sub judice. However, local authorities and their legal advisers will no doubt take that into account when considering how to fulfil their duty in enforcing the law on Sunday trading. My right hon. Friend asked when the Government will pursue the reform of the law. He knows that the Government's policy continues to be to achieve agreement on proposals for reform of the Sunday trading laws in England and Wales which are workable and enforceable and enjoy sufficient public and parliamentary support.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 791 in which my hon. Friends and I have drawn attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced that he is overruling the wishes of Highland regional council on the test borehole hole at Dounreay for the disposal of nuclear waste?
[That this House condemns the decision by the Secretary of State for Scotland to sustain an appeal by the UKAEA against the refusal of planning permission by Highlands Regional Council for the test drilling of holes and the use of explosive charges for a seismic survey at Dounreay; regards this decision as a contemptuous dismissal of the

441
democratically expressed rights of locally elected representatives to defend their communities; and sees the continuing threat of nuclear disposal as a direct threat to the security and development of industries based on the need to retain a pure environment.]
Will the Government find time to enable the House to have a full debate on that matter, given that the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who have responsibility in those matters, successfully fought against such action in their own constituencies? The people of Scotland find it difficult to understand why they are being treated as second-class citizens.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refer to that matter at Question Time. She will know that the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Atomic Energy Authority's application for the seismic survey was based—as it had to be—on the planning merits of the proposal. It does not pre-empt a decision on the establishment of a nuclear waste repository at Dounreay. Ministers have given an assurance that any proposal to construct such a repository will be subject to a full public inquiry at which all arguments about its possible impact can be aired. In view of that, if the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the matter relating to the decision about the seismic survey, there are ways in which she can do so. I cannot give Government time to debate that matter, for the reasons that I have just given.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate early-day motion 788:
[That this House believes that the War Crimes Bill should not be presented to Her Majesty for Her Assent.]
Although I have the deepest respect for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and for the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I suggest to them that no Government of the day should invoke the Parliament Acts. Rather, the matter should be put to the House, because no Executive should be able to railroad through the legislature legislation that it wishes to pass, regardless of its merits. It is quite proper—indeed, it is of the greatest importance, constitutionally—that the House should have an opportunity to vote on the provisions of the Parliament Acts rather than any Government—albeit this one—in their wisdom deciding that the Bill must be pushed through.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings on the Bill, but the position is clear. I do not think that the Government are railroading the Bill through. It was fully discussed in the last Session of Parliament in both Houses. There were two debates—one on procedure and one on Second Reading—a short while ago in this House. On all three occasions when the Bill was discussed in the House and there was a major decision of principle—two Second Readings and one debate on the principle of the Bill—the House, on a free vote and by a large majority, showed its view. That was the position in March this year, when we debated the Bill on Second Reading. The Government then made it clear that, although we hoped that it would not be necessary to invoke the Parliament Acts, it would depend on the actions of the other place. If the other place rejected the Bill, the Parliament Acts would
442
be invoked as a last resort. That is the position that we are now in. Therefore, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday and to what you said, Mr. Speaker, in explaining the automatic process of the Parliament Acts.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House will recall that last week I asked him to take up with his colleague the Foreign Secretary the issue of making available to the House of Commons the draft treaty on political union deposited by the Luxembourg presidency. That matter is of immense concern to hon. Members as the treaty affects the rights, voting rights and powers of the House. The Leader of the House will know that, in response to that request, I received a telephone call from a Minister offering to show me the treaty on a confidential basis. That is quite inadequate, inappropriate and positively insulting to the House of Commons. Will the Leader of the House take up the matter again and ensure that that important draft treaty document is deposited in the Library?
Mr. MacGregor: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a draft treaty and document—a presidential draft—which changes as the situation unfolds so there will not be one, single, definitive document. I immediately took up the request of the right hon. Gentleman last week with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The right hon. Gentleman responded to my hon. Friend's telephone call with a further letter making the point that he has made today, and I am in discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister about that.
Mr. Michael Latham: Can my right hon. Friend help a simple fellow like me and explain the nature of next Tuesday's business? What is the business on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill, which precedes the Finance Bill? What will we be discussing, and how long will that discussion last?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall not be misled by my hon. Friend, who is not a simple fellow but understands such matters extremely well. However, I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to explain the matter a little more. The Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill refers to a debate that we had this week on the estimates for community charge expenditure. For reasons which I think were explained this week, the Bill must be taken automatically following this week's discussions.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Reverting to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), will the Leader of the House confirm that the draft treaty to which reference has been made is within the public realm in at least one capital of the European Community states? If that is so, would not it be appropriate for it to be fully in the public realm in this country? Will the Leader of the House confirm that he and the Foreign Secretary, while responsible for the royal prerogative, are using it in negotiation for a treaty that reduces it and could lead to its destruction, and consequently to the reduction of the powers of the Crown, of the House and of the British people?
Mr. MacGregor: No, I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point in this context. I confirm that, as I understand it, the document is somewhere in the "public realm"—whatever that vague phase means. The

443
position is not precise, in relation to Community or parliamentary procedures, but I believe that the document is available to some. However, as is inevitable in negotiations, I suspect that the document will regularly undergo various changes. I understand the interest in this issue, which is why I am discussing with my hon. Friend the Minister of State how to proceed on it.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend responded to a suggestion that the Government were railroading things through the House. The House will understand that, because of the Government motion on the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill, there was no opportunity to change the Bill. He will also understand that the procedure has not been used for 50 years and the House has not explicitly voted on the use of the Parliament Acts. I hope that he will reconsider whether it will be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to sign the certificate because you said that the only thing that would prevent you from signing the certificate and carrying out the Parliament Acts procedure would be an explicit instruction from the House not to do so. The House should have that opportunity.
While we are on the subject of railroading, my right hon. Friend will realise that it was not possible to debate the instruction that clause 50 of the Finance Bill be taken on the Floor of the House. Some people have been more successful in volunteering for places on the Finance Bill Committee than others. I am not certain that the Government side on the Finance Bill has yet had so many successful volunteers that all, bar 25 per cent., are on the payroll, even though many of the Private Parliamentary Secretaries are not in receipt of money. Is it possible to ensure that, if clause 50 remains unchanged in Committee, we could have a full debate on it, if necessary, when the Bill returns to the House on Report?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first matter, as my hon. Friend knows, the Bill is unchanged from Second Reading. It was in the hands of the other place to decide whether it wanted the opportunity to amend the Bill, as it could have done, but their Lordships prevented themselves from doing that by the decision that they took on Tuesday evening.
The House voted on Second Reading in March by a large majority—knowing that the Bill might or might not be changed in another place—and the decision of the House was very clear. The procedure under the Parliament Acts is that, once Mr. Speaker has certified that a Bill has been rejected in another place, it follows automatically that we move to Royal Assent unless time is given in this House to go over all the ground again. I judge from the general reaction that the House believes that it made a clear decision on that matter in March.
On the Finance Bill, we shall obviously have to see what happens in Committee, but my hon. Friend will know that some of these matters can be discussed again at a later stage in our parliamentary proceedings. We had better wait and see what happens.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I reinforce the request, or demand, by the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), for an early debate in Government time on health? Now that self-governing hospitals. have private business plans that are not in the public domain, we are in a new situation. If the Government are as confident as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest,
444
it would be in their interests to allay much of the fear and suspicion in the country by holding a debate, so that some of these matters can be aired on the Floor of the House.
On a point of clarification about Thursday's business: is it intended to take Second Reading and Committee stage of the Social Security (Contributions) Bill then? If it is, I hope that that will not be a precedent for such matters in future.
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have nothing to add to what I said a short while ago.
On the second point, it is intended to take Second Reading and remaining stages on Thursday. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the single matter to which the Bill refers was in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget, but it was not possible to take it in the Finance Bill because it relates to national insurance contributions and thus requires separate legislative treatment. It is, however, the equivalent of one item in the Finance Bill, which we are also discussing on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Further to the question about British Rail asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), may I tell the Leader of the House that, because the proposal is now for an overland route, between 3,000 and 4,000 homes could lie within 200 m of the track? That will ruin the lives of many people, many of whom are my constituents. People throughout the south-east opposed these proposals when they were before us last year, when the route was primarily underground, so I impress on the Minister the urgency of ensuring that the Secretary of State for Transport comes to the House to make a statement not just about the Government's intentions but to explain how British Rail could make such disastrous proposals twice running, and how it could have failed to take any account of the cross-party consensus that this is a wholly unacceptable route.
Mr. MacGregor: Without going into the issues, and not knowing what is being decided because, like the hon. Lady, I have read only press rumours—unless she has more information than I do—I understand the concern of those who might be affected and the hon. Lady's wish to represent her constituents in this matter. I shall discuss it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and we shall have to decide whether—and if so, how and when—it is appropriate for the matter to be discussed here.
Mr. Roger Sims: May I warmly endorse what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has just said and confirm that there is great anxiety in my constituency about the reports emanating about British Rail's proposals? It is imperative that the Secretary of State make a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Secondly, will the House have an opportunity to discuss the council tax before a Bill is published? The proposals were embodied in a document issued last week and described as a consultation paper, but we have since heard the Secretary of State say that the bands have been decided and that he has no intention of changing them. Is it a consultation paper, and will the House be consulted on the proposal?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's first point and I know how well he represents his constituents' interests. I shall associate him with the requests to my right hon. and learned Friend. I confirm that it is a consultative document. At this stage, I cannot say if or exactly when we shall proceed in the House on the matter. However, I have noted my hon. Friend's request.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: If I heard the Leader of the House aright he said that the two European Standing Committees will meet next week. When can we expect an early statement on the workings of those Committees? If I picked up aright the rumours that the Leader of the House has changes in mind about the Standing Orders that govern those two Committees, will he be good enough to discuss such proposals with the members of the Committees? I remind him that those members are permanent and are not drawn from the poor bloody infantry.
Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware that they are permanent members, because several of them made points to me about the Committees as they progressed. The hon. Gentleman asked about a statement. The appropriate way to handle the matter is in the way that I have suggested on several occasions, by a review at the end of the summer of the way in which the Committees have worked. We may or may not want to make changes at that time and, obviously, at that stage I would wish to hear the views of the members of the Committees. From time to time, there may be a need to make changes, sometimes on minor matters, if that is the general view. I have said that I might wish to do that if it was the general feeling that it would be appropriate to do so. In most cases there would be a proper opportunity, especially if a change to Standing Orders were required, for the House to be consulted and to take a view.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will understand that, at Question Time on Northern Ireland, I welcomed the announcement about the resurrection of a Northern Ireland Grand Committee. However, I am disappointed that there has been no announcement about a debate on the Government's response to the report by the Select Committee on Procedure. When may we expect such a debate, and will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which Department of Government ever welcomed a Select Committee to scrutinise it?
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's main point, he will know that the Government's response appeared only yesterday and that, therefore, it would be highly inappropriate for me to announce today that we intended to debate it next week. We shall have to reflect and see whether the House feels that it requires a full debate. I should like there to be time for all hon. Members to study the Government's response. I have found Departments very forthcoming in their evidence and in the way in which they respond to Select Committees. As the hon. Gentleman knows, matters relating to Northern Ireland have been debated in Select Committees.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the plight of the Kurdish people, so that the House may have a chance to assess the effects of the aid that has been sent to them and the way in which it has reached people living in the most dreadful conditions on the mountains in Iraq? Such
446
a debate would also enable the House to express an opinion about the need for a long-term settlement based on the rights of the Kurdish people to self-determination, which has consistently been denied since the break-up of the Ottoman empire. Many believe that there will never be long-term peace in the region until the rights of the Kurdish people to self-determination are recognised. That non-recognition is a major factor in instability in the region.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that everyone in the House recognises the seriousness of the plight of the Kurdish people. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have taken the lead internationally both in providing aid through the safe havens proposal and in pursuing other aspects of that through the United Nations. The House is kept fully informed of the Government's thinking and all the action that they are taking on that front. I cannot promise at this stage a debate on the matter. I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to keep the House fully informed so that hon. Members may question Ministers on the steps that we are taking. I will keep open the possibility of a debate, but I cannot promise one in the near future, because we have a lot of business to conduct.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the house early-day motion 744, which points out that the Minister for Sport, although he was appointed in the summer of 1990, has yet to answer a single oral question on sport in the Chamber.
[That this House regrets that the Minister of Sport, although appointed in the summer of 1990, has yet to answer a single oral question on sport in the Chamber, and calls on the Procedure Committee to arrange for sport to have a question time allocation, as do the Arts and Overseas Development.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore arrange for the Minister to come to the House next week and make a statement on the MCC's disgraceful decision to blackball Rachael Heyhoe Flint? Is he aware that Miss Heyhoe Flint has not been defeated as the captain of England's cricket team, which is more than one can say about her male counterpart? Perhaps the Blimps and buffers of MCC do not like being associated with success. That might be one reason why they fast-tracked the Prime Minister's application for membership. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Minister to come and make a statement? If not, will he advise the Prime Minister to resign from MCC in protest against the disgraceful sexist approach?
Mr. MacGregor: It is not for me to comment on MCC's decision, nor is it for my hon. Friend to take responsibility in the House for that decision. I do not think that it would be appropriate for my hon. Friend to make a statement on the matter next week. I know that so far my hon. Friend has not been able to answer a question on sport. I fear that he has been extremely unlucky in the shuffle of questions. I am sure that he would have been only too delighted to answer questions and to defend the Government's policy on sport generally.
Mr. Ray Powell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman present for the business statement? If he was, I will call him, but it is difficult for me to call him if he has not heard what the business will be next week.
Mr. Powell: With all due respect, I was in for' Irish questions.
Mr. Speaker: That is not what I asked.
Mr. Powell: I heard you groan, Mr. Speaker, when I stood up last, but I was waiting for the Leader of the House to comment not only on Sunday trading but about the War Crimes Bill, further to his comments when the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) requested time next week for a debate on Sunday trading. I share the view expressed on behalf of the Opposition yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and, indeed, the view of the Government.
When I listened to the replies of the Leader of the House to questions about the War Crimes Bill, I could not understand why he did not take the same view on Sunday trading. When the hon. Member for Hendon, South moved his Bill, which I opposed, the House decided by a majority of 2:1 to reject it. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the decision on the same basis as they accept the decision on the War Crimes Bill. Therefore, we do not need more votes on Sunday trading. We took a decision on it in 1986 and we took another decision recently when my hon. Friend presented his Bill. Why cannot the Government accept that decision and ensure the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950?
Mr. MacGregor: It is, of course, for local authorities, not for the Government, to undertake the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950. The hon. Gentleman was a little muddled in the question which he asked. On the War Crimes Bill, the House has twice—on Second Reading and, last Session, through all the proceedings—voted in favour of the Bill. The Bill is proceeding automatically now under the arrangements of the Parliament Acts because the House has taken a clear decision. When the House rejects Bills on other matters, it is always open to the Government of the day or to individual Members to come forward with further proposals. I do not think that it would be appropriate to have a statement on Sunday trading next week because we have made the position clear, in so far as we have been able to judge it from the recent court decision. The general position of the Government, their policy approach and the steps that they are taking are also clear.

Questions to Ministers
4.25 pm
Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask you about the listing of questions. The reason I mention this is that, at Northern Ireland questions this afternoon, for the second time. I unfortunately failed to get on to the Order Paper with the question I asked. I appreciate that other hon. Members are perfectly entitled to put down questions, but I think that, with regard to Northern Ireland, as indeed with Scottish and Welsh questions, particular factors are involved. Our constituents take an interest in these questions, and I can imagine the conclusion that may be drawn if an hon. Member does not appear to have asked a question. I recall that, a few months ago, a Scottish Member raised the issue, and I think that you said that the matter could be reconsidered. I wonder whether you could tell us what the position now is.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will draw that to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure, I am sure that it will wish to look at it. I believe that the general feeling is that the procedure is working reasonably well. I do take into account hon. Members who are in the Chamber and whose questions are not printed on the Order Paper. Indeed, I was able to call the hon. Member this afternoon. He should take the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, however, because I am sure that his complaint will be kept under review.
Mr. Michael Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the Table Office is most helpful in this matter? If an hon. Member's question is not printed because it is below the necessary number, all that he has to do is ask for it to be put down as a written question to be tabled in that form.
Mr. Speaker: That is a very helpful comment, and it is the truth.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my capacity as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I think that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raises a very good point in respect of both Northern Ireland and Scottish questions. Therefore, I will, of course, refer to the Committee your very wise words on the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Upper Bann has a very powerful ally.

Questions to Ministers

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the seven motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (S.1. 1991, No. 635) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 636) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 637) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  449
  That the Personal Community Charge (Reduction for 1990–91) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 854) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Personal Community Charge (Reduction for 1991–92) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 855) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Community Charges (Levying, Collection and Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 856) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Education (Mandatory Awards) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 827) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Royal Air Force
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
[Relevant documents: Thirteenth report from the Defence Committee on "Improved United Kingdom Air Defence Ground Environment," HC 591 of Session 1989–90, the first special report containing the Government's reply thereto, HC 288 of Session 1990–91, and the minutes of evidence taken, and memoranda laid, before the Committee on 24 April 1991, relating to "Options for Change: RAF," HC 393, copies of which have been placed in the Library.]
4.27 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): When I opened the Royal Air Force debate last year I drew attention to the major changes then under way in eastern Europe. Much has happened since. We have seen the unification of Germany and the signature of the agreement on conventional forces in Europe. Both are far-reaching developments.
In general, there has been a continued consolidation of the movement towards democracy in the old Warsaw treaty nations, and, while they still face an uncertain future, the lessening of tension across the continent has brought undoubted benefits to East and West alike.
However, hardly had the apparatus of Communism begun to fall apart in Europe than a new threat to freedom and world stability emerged in the middle east. The cynical invasion of Kuwait by Iraq last August and the atrocities committed on the Kuwaiti population demonstrate all too vividly the need to remain vigilant in defending civilised values.
The RAF has been intimately affected by these developments. In the very process of restructuring in the light of the changed security situation in Europe it found itself closely and directly deployed in the liberation of Kuwait. Now it is assisting in the international effort to provide vital humanitarian aid to the Kurds in northern Iraq.
These past 12 months have been particularly challenging for the RAF and, characteristically, it has responded with professionalism, commitment and success. In the critical early days following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, air power was immediately available to us to deploy to the Gulf in time to help deter further Iraqi aggression. We declared on 9 August our intention to send forces to the area in response to a request from King Fand. Within 48 hours, a squadron of Tornado F3 fighters was in the Gulf and operational at Dhahran air base in Saudi Arabia. Just two hours after arriving, two of these aircraft were airborne on an operational mission. Within the next 48 hours a squadron of Jaguar ground attack aircraft was in place in southern Oman. These deployments were rapidly followed by Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, air-to-air refuelling assets and other front-line units.
Within days of the order being given, the Royal Air Force had deployed a powerful military force, with the necessary support, at a distance of over 3,000 miles from its main bases. Following the initial deployments, we decided in September to increase our military commitment. In addition to dispatching the 7th Armoured Brigade, we deployed a squadron of Tornado GR 1 aircraft to Bahrain, and more Tornado F3 fighters were sent to Saudi Arabia.

451
In November, the allied military presence was strengthened still further. The British Army contribution was strengthened to reinforced divisional strength. For the Royal Air Force, this meant deploying more Tornado GR1s, including some equipped with the air-launched anti-radiation missile for the suppression of enemy air defence radars. Chinook and Puma support helicopters were deployed to operate alongside British land forces for casualty evacuation and logistic support, and further RAF Regiment personnel to provide ground and air defence for the RAF detachments.
The RAF's response to the crisis was not confined to regular forces. Reserve forces also played a vital role. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force provided aeromedical evacuation and air movement units, and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve provided support in the areas of intelligence and meteorological services.
From midnight on Wednesday 16 January, RAF Tornado GR1 aircraft were heavily involved in the first wave of attacks on Iraqi airfields. In the first 24 hours of operations, RAF aircraft flew a total of 101 sorties—an intensity of activity that was sustained throughout much of the early period of the conflict.
Those days saw the early attainment of air superiority, which rapidly became air supremacy, with the effective neutralisation of the Iraqi air force. This allowed attacks to be switched from low to medium level.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: is my right hon. Friend aware that, during some the early Tornado attacks, a number of crew baled out and were taken prisoner? Some were tortured and were paraded on world television. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those were horrendous crimes and that the perpetrators should be brought to justice?
Mr. Clark: My instinct is to agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. Quite how what he suggests is achieved may present difficulties, but those difficulties should not be allowed to be insuperable. I am glad of the opportunity to assert our position.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any further information about the campaign medal that is to be given to our Gulf service men? Can he assure us that it will be not yet another general service medal but a special medal to mark the valour of all our sevice men?
Mr. Clark: Plainly, there will be such a medal. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied to hear that an announcement will be made shortly.
Great care was taken in planning attacks to reduce to the absolute minimum the risk of civilian casualties. To this end, extensive use was made of laser designation and precision guided weapons. All these proved to be among the most effective weapons of the air campaign.
The relative shortness of the land battle, when hostilities finally opened, owes much to the lengthy and highly successful air campaign, which severely reduced both the enemy's will and its capacity to fight. During hostilities, Tornado aircraft were employed against key strategic targets, such as airfields and bridges, while Jaguars flew high sortie rates—without loss—against targets mainly in the battlefield area. I am sure that the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the special courage
452
displayed by our airmen in performing the uniquely difficult tasks presented by having to fly attack missions at low level.
While much has been said and written about the role of the attack aircraft, I should like to say a few words about the less glamorous and sometimes forgotten elements of the force. Modern fighters and fighter bombers have great tactical and operational flexibility, but they lack range. If they are to deploy to distant theatres such as the Gulf, and operate at long range when there, they need the support of tanker aircraft. They also need transport aircraft to move the personnel, ground equipment and weapons that are essential to support high-intensity operations.
During hostilities, the RAF tanker force offloaded some 13,000 tonnes of fuel, while air transport aircraft flew a total of 13 million miles to move some 50,000 tonnes of freight. In addition, Nimrods provided important maritime surveillance through daily patrols in the northern Gulf throughout the period of hostilities.
Our aircraft were originally configured for operation in northern Europe; they needed additional or modified equipment to improve their effectiveness in the harsh desert environment. Navigation enhancements were made to cope with the featureless desert terrain; engines required protection from the effects of sand. Identification and communication systems were provided to ensure that RAF aircraft could operate effectively alongside those of our allies. The support that we received from industry was first-class, with many firms, large and small alike, working long hours of overtime—some of it over the Christmas holiday—to produce and incorporate the many aircraft modifications and new equipments that we required.
The right equipment is essential; but ultimately it is the people who operate it who make the difference between success and failure. I have mentioned the role of the support personnel, and I should now like to pay a tribute to the aircrew, whose outstanding courage, good humour and determination to see the job through deserves the highest praise. They were an inspiration to their fellow service men and women in the RAF, and, I believe, to the nation as a whole.
Thankfully, the cost of the operation in terms of lives lost was small, but that cannot lessen the loss for the families of the five airmen who were killed on operational missions. Those families, I know, have the deepest sympathy of the whole House as they seek to come to terms with the loss of their loved ones.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Keith Mans: My right hon. Friend mentioned the right weapons. Has any assessment been made of the runway denial weapon, the JP233? Does he feel that there is a need for a stand-off weapon capability for the Tornado when it is attacking airfields?
Mr. Clark: I do not wish to isolate any particular weapon system used in the conflict. We are undertaking a full and detailed assessment and analysis of every aspect of the functioning of such weapon systems. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a primary system, which we shall have to consider carefully, but I do not wish to deal with it outside the broader context; I think that it is always better to consider the performance of all the systems in relation to one another and in relation to the outcome of

453
the campaign. As I am sure my hon. Friend and the House will understand, I think that it would be premature to comment specifically about individual systems.
As the refugee crisis in Iraq developed, it became increasingly clear that aircraft were the only practicable way of moving relief supplies rapidly to the areas of real need. Late on 5 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that United Kingdom aircraft would play a full part in relief operations. Three Hercules aircraft departed for Incirlik air base in Turkey early on 7 April, carrying tents, blankets, sheeting, food and sleeping bags. The first United Kingdom air drops into Iraq were carried out on the following morning.
Since then, often in quite appalling conditions, Royal Air Force Hercules have transported about 500 tons of relief supplies to otherwise inaccessible areas. Now that the refugees have started to come down from the mountains, and given the sheer volume of relief support which has been contributed by British, United States, Italian, Canadian and French aircraft, we hope that it will soon be possible to bring that part of the operation to an end. However, the task of the RAF Chinook and other Royal Navy and Army helicopters will continue.
The first RAF Chinook helicopters arrived in Turkey from the United Kingdom on 13 April. Others, en route home from the Gulf, were turned around in remarkably quick time to join them shortly afterwards. The Chinooks are now flying from forward operating bases close to the Turkey-Iraq border, taking supplies forward and evacuating sick and injured refugees.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my hon. Friend clarify whether the cost of the relief operation for Kurdish refugees will be borne by the defence or the overseas aid budget?
Mr. Clark: The cost of the supplies is being met from the overseas aid budget by the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign Office vote, but the Ministry of Defence will be meeting many of the operational costs, and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chancellor will be discussing the exact allocation and its impact on our budget in the fulness of time when the operation is concluded.
I referred earlier to the changes in Europe and their implications for the RAF. We welcome the close interest being taken by the Select Committee on Defence in this matter. The House will be aware that attention has been drawn to the Committee's most recent contribution in the context of this debate.
The House will be familiar with the "Options for Change" proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last July. The expected break-up of the Warsaw pact as a military body is now confirmed, and that has to be a major factor in our thinking about future European security.
A graphic illustration of the recent reduction in East-West tension is the fact that the chief of the air staff was allowed to fly the Soviet Flanker aircraft which visited Farnborough last year. I have read his report on that experience, and very entertaining and impressive it was. However, on arms control, progress has been somewhat patchy. The conventional forces in Europe agreement is
454
welcome and marks real progress, but we have continuing concerns about Soviet forces east of the Urals and the resubordination of army units to the Soviet navy.
Under "Options for Change", our aim is to restructure the RAF into a balanced force equipped to meet the needs of the 1990s and beyond. Hon. Members will recall the detailed changes to the RAF front line foreshadowed in the July statement by my right hon. Friend. Those included withdrawing from service the Phantom air defence aircraft, reducing the number of Tornado GR1 squadrons with nuclear and conventional roles in Europe from 11 to six and re-equipping a further two squadrons of dual-capable Tornado GR1 aircraft with Sea Eagle missiles to replace the present Buccaneer force in the anti-ship role.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister will be aware that the Buccaneers are essentially based at RAF Lossiemouth in my constituency. I note from the minutes of evidence given to the Select Committee that consideration is being given to placing the maritime strike Tornados at Lossiemouth. When will we be likely to hear such an announcement?
Mr. Clark: I cannot give the hon. Lady a precise date at present, but I will make sure that she is informed the moment that a decision is made, which I expect will be relatively soon.
We plan to upgrade all Tornado GR5 aircraft to GR7 standard, with the addition of a night attack capability.
Mr. Michael Mates: Harrier.
Mr. Clark: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I blame the word processor.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: National health service eye tests now have to be paid for.
Mr. Clark: I do not wear glasses, but my vision would have to be fairly defective to misread Harrier for Tornado. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for implying that I am not reading the text but simply delivering my speech ad lib.
The first full squadron of GR7 will become operational this year and it is expected that the full conversion programme will be complete by the mid-1990s. We are currently negotiating an order for new Harrier T10 training aircraft to meet the rigorous training requirements for the GR5 and GR7.
The RAF has now taken delivery of its first Boeing E3D Sentry airborne early warning aircraft, which will operate from RAF Waddington. The second E3D is scheduled for delivery next month, and the full order should be complete by early next year, with aircraft in service shortly after. The E3D Sentry will ensure that the RAF has a modern and effective capability for airborne early warning for the 1990s and beyond, and that it will be in a position to provide a full 40 per cent. of NATO's future AEW force.
Looking to the future, development of the new European fighter aircraft is continuing well. The radar and most other airframe equipments have been selected, and the first full-scale development engine is being tested. Construction of a prototype aircraft continues, and it is expected that that will fly next spring. Soon afterwards, we will need, in conjunction with our partners, to conduct a thorough review of progress during the development

455
programme, and to determine whether to proceed to the production phase. We expect to reach a decision at about the end of 1992.
We have also been addressing the future of the Tornado F3. The House will be aware that we have been considering the possibility of upgrading the aircraft's sensor and avionic systems. We shall continue to do so, and to place such a development in the context of our overall development of the RAF under the "Options" provisions.
Development of the second stage of the Foxhunter radar programme is scheduled to be completed later this year. Production of modification kits and their embodiment by the RAF will follow shortly thereafter. I am pleased to say that certain features of the second stage of the programme, together with other improvements, have already been introduced into those Tornado F3s deployed to the Gulf. I am now considering whether those further improvements should be added to the second stage of the radar programme and extended to the rest of the Tornado F3 fleet.
The modernisatioin of the tanker fleet continues. Work is now under way on the conversion of the 13 VC-10 aircraft to which I referred in last year's debate. I am pleased to report that the first phase of the Tristar conversion programme is complete, with six aircraft in service in a tanker role.
We have decided that the Bloodhound surface-to-air missile will be withdrawn from service this year, and that the force will be disbanded. Bloodhound is aging and increasingly ineffective in the face of modern electronic counter-measures, and it is no longer cost-effective to keep it in service. We are currently considering the requirement for medium surface-to-air missiles in the context of our overall air defence planning. We expect to seek proposals from industry shortly, and advance notice has been given to the defence industry in the MOD contracts bulletin.
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the evidence that I understand was given to the Select Committee. What will happen to the defence of our country between his deciding to get rid of Bloodhound and deciding whether he wishes to replace it?
Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Bloodhound was not defending our country; it was defending a couple of United States air force bases. The effectiveness of Bloodhound has been diminishing steadily. It was introduced in 1964. "Obsolescent" is the kindest word that can be used to describe it. It was susceptible to every kind of electronic interference, and to withdraw it from service is exactly the sort of measure that can be regarded as entirely prudent and cost-effective.
Mr. O'Neill: If something which has been seen as obsolete for a long time and has been deployed defending targets which the Minister considers to be not particularly important—I may have cause to differ with him on that—why have we persisted with it for so long?
Mr. Clark: The House is used to the rapid change of footwork demonstrated by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). He often starts in the blue corner and then comes out of the red one. Having just reproached me for getting rid of the system too quickly, he now wants to know why we did not get rid of it sooner. That must mean that we are getting rid of it at exactly the right moment.
Mr. Mans: I am interested in what my right hon. Friend has said. As I understand it, that particular medium-range missile system is designed to defend most of East Anglia and the north-east coast. I also understand that the reason why it has been in service for so long is that the system that is adopted is very difficult to jam. While I realise that it is coming to the end of its operational life, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the situation that will pertain when the system leaves service at the end of the year?
Mr. Clark: I am entirely satisfied that, when the system leaves service, we will not find that our anti-aircraft defence is significantly degraded.
Finally, I must reiterate the outstanding contribution made by the RAF during the international effort to liberate Kuwait. Many RAF personnel are now involved not only in the immense task of recovering equipment from Kuwait and southern Iraq but also in the more pressing humanitarian effort currently under way in Turkey and northern Iraq. It is our intention that "Options for Change" will continue to ensure that the RAF is equipped and trained to perform the vital job we expect of it, which it carried out with such distinction in the Gulf conflict.
4.51 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I was somewhat surprised by the brevity of the Minister's peroration. However, given the content of his speech, I can understand that brevity.
It is no secret that the usual channels have been canvassing new arrangements for the discussion of defence matters in the House. The Opposition have had an open mind about the proposals for full day debates for each service. However, given the changed circumstances since 2 August, it is only right and proper that, this Session at least, we should devote a day to each of the services.
Besides those of us who take a close interest in defence matters, other hon. Members will want to reflect their own and their constituents' concern about the Gulf war, the role of the troops and the future procurement of equipment that will be required to fulfil the roles expected of them in the light of what Secretary of State James Baker, perhaps somewhat optimistically, described as the new world order. Therefore, it is all the more regrettable that this first service debate has been arranged for a day when so few hon. Members are in the Chamber. The reason for their absence is perfectly correct: they are working to support candidates in today's local government elections.
While it may be too early to expect the House to reach a definitive view on the lessons to be learnt from Operation Granby, I am sure that we all recognise the outstanding contribution of our troops, and in particular the work of the RAF in the air war. Before 15 January, some people doubted the effectiveness of air power, perhaps because of earlier experiences such as the failure in Vietnam and the overkill in Dresden and Coventry, to say nothing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Bomb damage assessment work was hampered during the Gulf war by poor weather. I hope that the studies will enable us to appreciate the full picture. We will be able to appreciate the full extent of civilian casualties and the impact of the bombing on a civilian infrastructure that was so closely linked to a military machine. We will be able to

457
assess the balance between the damage inflicted by air attacks against that caused by advancing coalition ground forces.
We must also bear in mind the absence of any significant Iraqi air response and the sheer scale of the coalition forces. We must try to establish why the Iraqis chose not to fight. It is widely recognised that the Iraqi air force was the service least sympathetic towards Saddam. However, what prompted the air force to defect on such a massive scale?
Mr. Bill Walker: The history of Arab air forces since 1945 may have a lesson for the hon. Gentleman and others who question why they did not fight. The record of Arab air forces fighting during that period is pretty abysmal.
Mr. O'Neill: I know that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) takes a close interest in all matters aeronautical. The actions of the Saudi air force in the recent conflict do not support his assertion. A number of the Iraqi troops enjoyed British training and some of the benefits of the experience of the people against whom they were ultimately ranged. That may be a factor, but remarks of that character verge on ethnic judgments of a rather dubious nature and they are better left unsaid.
The Opposition recognise the crisis of morale that seemed to emerge among the Iraqi troops. That contrasted with what I and other members of the Select Committee on Defence witnessed among RAF air crew and maintenance personnel in late November before the conflict. The young men we met were confident and adamant that they were ready to do what they had spent so much time training for. There was none of the exuberant and almost irresponsible gung-ho spirit that seemed to characterise some of their gallant predecessors during the Battle of Britain. The people I met and to whom I had an opportunity to speak out there could not but convince everyone of the seriousness of their intent, their professionalism and the cool and studied way in which they were preparing for what none of us appreciated were going to be such great risks.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: The commander of the RAF base in my constituency was in charge of the Royal Air Force in the Gulf to which we all pay tribute. Is it not much more likely that the Iraqi pilots realised that the coalition's electronic surveillance systems were so superior that they risked being shot out of the sky because they did not have commensurate equipment? They had to save their planes and they made a wise decision.
In the same connection, later on in the conflict was it not necessary for the USAF and the other American parts of the coalition forces to show some restraint, bearing in mind that they had total command of the air, during the final Iraqi retreat when those unfortunate and regrettable incidents occurred in which the British were not involved?
Mr. O'Neill: As I was saying earlier, a number of studies are being carried out at the moment and I hope that some of the questions that I have raised will be answered. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) must agree that our evidence at the moment is at best anecdotal.
In the last part of his intervention, the hon. Gentleman raised one of the most pressing aspects. We must recognise
458
that those people who were returning to Iraq were returning in some semblance of military order and were doing so against the instructions from the United Nations. They were at least sailing very close to the wind against the undertakings into which their own people had entered. To say the least, they were taking considerable risks.
I am not saying that the bombing of defenceless convoys is in any way justifiable. However, I wonder how defenceless were some sections of that convoy. The record of some of those troops suggested that they had precious little concern for humanitarian matters when other pressures were upon them. We must strike a balance. At one stage there may well have been excesses. However, subject to the kind of pressures that the American authorities faced, they acted very quickly to restrain their troops and that certainly diminished some of the casualties. However, we have yet to decide: as the Americans would say, the jury is still out on a number of those questions. It is incumbent upon us not to provide answers, but to ask questions about the conduct of the war. In a debate such as this, which deals with the significance of air power, it is correct to do so.
I shall conclude my tribute to our forces. The men I met were professionals. They knew the odds far better than politicians or planners, yet they were ready to undertake the tasks that we now understand required incredible bravery and skill. Among all of the troops deployed in the Gulf, there was a sense of common purpose and dedication, which enabled each and every one of them to know what his individual contribution would be. It was significant that the individual contributions together were far greater than the sum of their parts. The whole world marvelled at the courage of the Tornado pilots who carried out the early bombing raids on Iraqi airfields.
Mr. Michael Colvin rose——
Mr. O'Neill: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, I assure him that he will have plenty of time to do so this evening.
It was significant that those young pilots alone had the JP233 bombs. They had trained at low levels so that they could go in under enemy radar, rise, drop their bombs and then fly out at low levels through what has been described as a wall of lead created by AAA fire.
Does the Minister think it desirable that that sort of low flying should be repeated? I know that he touched on that in response to an earlier intervention. It may be premature to decide now whether a stand-off version of the JP233 weapon would be desirable. We all understand the danger in which we placed those young pilots, and appreciate the success of their work. It is fortunate that they did not need to persist with it. However, we must consider whether it is necessary to subject our troops to that sort of risk when it may be possible to develop a stand-off capability that could do the job at far less risk to our troops, and perhaps without requiring the amount of low-level flying practice now undertaken.
I am not a professional; I am simply asking a question. I know that some hon. Members are capable of answering it, and others would like to be capable of answering it. I am a Labour Member who would like an answer to that question. It may not be appropriate to have that answer today, but I want to place the matter on the agenda so that the Ministry of Defence can review it. It is not a matter of

459
party political contention; it is something about which we are all concerned. If we reduce the risk to our troops and diminish the need for at least some of the low-level flying practice that so bedevils so many of our constituents, we would be doing everyone a service.
It would be dangerous to try to draw immediate conclusions, but as politicians we shall obviously try to do so. The war was fought by a coalition massed against an enemy whose depth of resources was probably greater than we had anticipated. They had certainly been built up through the impoverishment of Hussein's own people, and he achieved a military and industrial complex on a scale unrivalled for a country of that size of population and wealth.
The experience of fighting against such an enemy in the desert, with the associated air action and relatively restricted naval and amphibious activity, may not be relevant to a rapidly changing and, we hope, diminishing threat from central Europe, but there are still lessons to be learnt. I hope that "Options for Change" and the White Paper will provide some of the answers as quickly as possible.
Confronted by the aftermath of war, we now face problems such as the plight of the Kurds and that of the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq. Is there not a case for expanding the role of our services in undertaking humanitarian disaster relief—whether the cause is man-made, as in Iraq, or natural, as in Bangladesh? The speed with which the coalition forces were assembled, the scale of the resources made available, and the single-mindedness of their deployment and application to their tasks in Operation Granby has shown what can be done. I do not think that this House or history will judge lightly those who fail to respond to equally pressing, if different, challenges elsewhere.
Part of the massive effort to deploy our troops and equipment required a great deal of what can only be called cannibalising, and there was much ingenuity and quick-footedness. Equipment was obtained and refurbished. I would not go so far as to say that it was begged, borrowed or stolen, but knowing the ingenuity of quartermasters, it was not far from that. What impact did the support operations in the Gulf have on RAF Germany? Was the cupboard left bare? Have the shelves been refilled? Do we really need to restore them to previous levels, given the diminishing threat from central Europe?
The consequence of the failure of the Iraqi air force to respond in any meaningful way was to reduce air-to-air contact. A number of our fighter aircraft thankfully did not have to confront the Iraqi air force in the way that had been anticipated. As a result, the role of the Tornado F3 was limited to the valuable task of providing cover for those engaged in bombing, reconnaissance and air refuelling missions.
On the latter activity, I want to join the Minister in praising the tanker fleet—one of the unsung heroes of the war. In many respects, it was the most vulnerable of all targets, given the nature of its cargoes, yet it stayed in the air 24 hours a day, week after week, from the very outset of the war. Certainly, the members of that fleet whom I met undertook what was demanded of them with remarkable tolerance and patience. Of course, there are other unsung heroes, such as the aircrew and the back-up support, both of which were absolutely superb throughout the war.
460
The lessons we must learn will take some time to emerge. I heard what the Minister said about the European fighter aircraft programme. Will he comment on suggestions in the press about certain stealth adaptations being made to EFA? The Opposition support the programme, but there is always the danger—I am loth to mix metaphors and talk about the stealthing of the aircraft and gold plating, but "gold plating" is the only expression that comes to mind—that that very important programme will be subject to continual changes of specification to achieve heights of capability that, quite frankly, we do not require. In an ideal world, they might be desirable, but at present they are neither affordable or necessary.
As the four partners involved in the EFA programme will now require fewer aircraft than was originally anticipated, the unit costs could rise and could be subject to close scrutiny. We do not wish to find unnecessary sources of increased pricing in the form of smart ideas from people who say, "Wouldn't it be nice if we had something else?" At the moment, even acquiring the EFA programme, which is necessary for this country's next generation of fighter aircraft, will strain our budgets.
Mr. Keith Mans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that EFA already contains considerable stealth characteristics owing to the composite materials used in it and that its radar signature is considerably smaller than virtually that of any other present day combat aircraft?
Mr. O'Neill: I am aware of that, and it makes me even more concerned about some people's desire to make EFA even more stealthlike. Given what we think is necessary for the aircraft to fulfil its tasks, we do not think that it should, to mix metaphors, be gold-plated with extra stealth. We could end up with something that is far more expensive and unrealistic at a time when we are already under pressure. Both this Government and the next Labour Government will want to ensure that the success of the programme is not endangered in any way.
Mr. Colvin: In view of the success of the Tornado in the Gulf and our long-standing good relations with Saudi Arabia over supplying the Tornado, and given that the Tornado was sold on the back of the earlier Lightning's success, perhaps we should consider changing the name of the European fighter aircraft to make its name more acceptable to third countries outside the four-nation consortium that is building it. According to the evidence that I have received from the aerospace industry, there is no doubt that there is a lot of interest in that aircraft from other countries, especially those in the Gulf.
When the Minister of State was answering questions yesterday, many about EFA were fired at him and he batted a lot of them off, saying, "There will be plenty of time to discuss all this tomorrow in the defence debate." On reading the record, I noticed the suggestion that, if Germany decided to withdraw from EFA—there has been some suggestion that that is a possibility—the unit cost of the aircraft would increase. As far as I am aware, Germany's withdrawal would do exactly the opposite, because the costs of the German aerospace industry are higher than those of the British industry. Although Germany's withdrawal might mean goodbye to a certain number of German sales for EFA, it might also reduce the costs of that aircraft.
Mr. O'Neill: As we say in Scotland, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should "ca' canny" on that one. We are trying to keep Germany's involvement. The Minister's diplomatic skills and enthusiasm for Europe are well known. I understand that the initial order for 850 EFAs could drop to as low as 400 before the project is put in any jeopardy. I do not like to think that the German component might disappear for any reason. The dangers to future sales of Germany's withdrawal cannot be underestimated. An aircraft that does not enjoy the continued support of the four initial partners is not likely to prove attractive to other countries, regardless of its name.
Incidentally, if I have any query about EFA's name, it is that it is somewhat misleading because its defensive role is as significant as its offensive role. Indeed, if it had a different name, it might not have attracted quite the approbrium that it has in some sections of German society.
We look forward to continued progress with the EFA programme and recognise that the British dimension on radar is well founded., We know that the political situation in Germany is somewhat questionable at the moment, but given Germany's level of unemployment and the shakiness of Germany's overall economic position, I am sure that all sides of the Bundestag would feel hard pressed to oppose any idea of reducing or cutting such a major programme. I do not think that that is likely to happen.
In these debates we normally talk about EFA and Bloodhound, and another of our hardy annuals is the EH 10l programme. Although yet another year has passed, the Minister's clear and unambiguous statement on the EH101 today was deafening in its silence. He chose not to refer to what should be a major order for a British helicopter or for a helicopter of any kind. I know that questions have sometimes been asked about the size of the EH101 and about whether we have the transport aircraft that are capable of moving it around the world to the places where we believe it should be deployed.
As a result of experiences in the Gulf, we know of the tremendous importance of helicopters, and the RAF needs to start making some decisions. If we have to consider transporting helicopters across the world at great speed, we should not discount the option that the Navy occasionally exercises, which is to take up civilian aircraft just as ships are taken from trade if our own aircraft cannot fulfil the transport function. The transportation problems of the EH101 are not, therefore, the central issue. As the Minister has responsibility for procurement, perhaps he will comment on what is happening about the EH101 and on how long the present paralysis in the MOD is likely to continue.
When the Minister mentioned Bloodhound, he chided me for questioning why he had decided to make the prudent decision on it. One of my hon. Friends has reminded me that last year the Minister chided the Opposition for asking questions about that because he said that we were being premature. Although a lot can happen in 14 or 15 months, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He has accused me of trying to have it both ways, but I am interested in what is going to happen over the next three or four years before there is any replacement, and in why a replacement was not sought earlier. The Minister is not to blame for all the mistakes of the past 12 years, but this matter was first planned 33 years ago and the officials in his office in the MOD have therefore had some warning about
462
the likelihood of Bloodhound diminishing in importance. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that point in his reply.
There was some press speculation this morning about the possibility of the Government acquiring stand-off missiles. However, the Minister did not mention that in his speech. Perhaps he will bring us up to date later on what passes for the Government's thinking on this matter. Are the Government seeking to procure SRAM-T or are they looking at its French counterpart? Are the Government considering accepting American aircraft that are equipped with such weapons in this country? Do the Government think that it is necessary to replace the WE177 with anything or are they awaiting a future decision from NATO? Is this matter to be subject to NATO's consideration or is it a subject to be decided exclusively by the British Government?
This debate is normally held a little earlier in the year, but it is always held in advance of the White Paper. At the end of his speech, the Minister said that he hoped that the White Paper would provide us with some of the answers. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that he hoped that the White Paper would be out before the summer recess, which meant that he was not certain that that would be the case. The right hon. Gentleman further hoped that "Options for Change" would be incorporated in that document. We all hope that, but the conditional way in which Ministers are now speaking suggests uncertainty.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate that, if the House is to be treated responsibly, we cannot be presented with a set of faits accompli. There must be a proper debate on a number of these issues if only to ensure that the Opposition have no grounds for charging the Government with dithering and prevarication. On several issues affecting both the Royal Air Force and other service procurement, we are not receiving any answers. We hear from industry that when people go to see the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister to make representations about their legitimate worries about future investment programmes and planning, they are told that they will have to wait and see.
In the past six months, many thousands of defence workers' jobs have been placed in jeopardy or disappeared. Those who remain are entitled to know what is happening. The people who served us so gallantly in the Gulf are entitled to know what will happen to them, where they will be based and what plans they can make for their children's education and for the future. No matter how committed the services are and how high their morale, the loyalty of personnel to their country is usually equalled by their responsibility to their families. Many of the men and women in the services have to take such considerations into account. At present, the Government's inability to give clear and specific answers to many questions is leading to plummeting morale, which is doing the defence of the country and the standing of the services no good.
Several problems face the Ministry of Defence. We know that next year there will be a cost overrun of £1·5 billion. It has been suggested that, on a long-term basis over the decade, the cost overrun will rise to some £21 billion. It is suggested that the money in the so-called peace dividend being sought by the Treasury is about £20 billion over the next six years.
There are 330,000 service personnel, 170,000 civil servants and 0·5 million defence workers looking for decisions. The fact that this is a motion for the

463
Adjournment of the House and that this is a poorly attended debate, for the reasons that I have already given, is no excuse for the Government to come to the House with so little to say and to broadcast such indecision around the country, whenever Government spokesmen have the opportunity.
This may be the first of the three service debates, but when we debate the future of the Army and the Navy, the Government roust shape up and come out with far better answers than we were given tonight. We join with the Government in their justifiable pride and relief about the effectiveness of our troops in the war. We are with the Government and at one in supporting them. Now that the war is over and the services have proved their worth, the Government are not backing them as they should by giving answers to the legitimate questions that hon. Members on both sides of the House are asking and will continue to ask until we have either a new Government or a Minister who is prepared to play fair and straight with the troops.
5.22 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: I begin with a note of agreement and understanding of the position of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and his party about these debates. [fully understand what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that this year of all years was an opportunity that should not be missied to discuss individual services, because of the peculiar circumstances of the Gulf. However, I hope that he ackowledges with me that the move that I initiated three years ago, with the approval of the Defence Select Committee, to rationalise the debates should be responded to. It is not satisfactory for Back-Bench Members, the hon. Gentleman as Opposition spokesman or, indeed, Ministers, to have Ministers answer in their new roles in the old-style debates which were set up when we had service Ministers.
Before we come to the main set-piece, two-day defence debate of the year, it must be logical to have a debate on procurement, with both procurement Ministers present speaking to their briefs, and a debate on the armed forces so that the two armed forces Ministers—or one, if one of them happens to be in the Lords—and the Secretary of State can speak about personnel, operational and other matters.
That would mean that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement would not have to answer on the Royal Air Force with expert knowledge on the procurement side but with perhaps less than perfect command of detail on any personnel or armed forces matters, which are not his job. I hope that, when we come to this series of debates next year, an agreement will have been made between the usual channels to rationalise the debates in that way.
Our Committee was fortunate to make two visits to the Gulf, one before hostilities and one after. On both visits, we saw for ourselves the cardinal and crucial role of air power in operation Granby. In November, we were briefed at Muharraq on the capability and potential destructive power of the JP223, to which reference has been made. We heard at first hand how our Tornados and Jaguars would be deployed as part of the massive allied air effort. We also saw the work of the Royal Air Force tanker fleet and that
464
of the transport forces. Indeed, on both visits we clocked up enough Hercules flying hours to last the rest of this Parliament.
At Dhahran, we spoke to the Tornado F3 air defence crews and at Al Muharraq we spoke to the ground crews and the Royal Air Force Regiment Rapier crews. We visited the hospital set up in the hospital building originally built by the RAF, and we had a chance to talk to all ranks in a memorable visit.
When we returned to Muharraq shortly after hostilities ended, we were fully briefed on the air campaign by those who had taken part in it. That was a privilege for which the Committee was grateful. The visit threw up several issues which need to be thought through. Few of us—alas, there are few of us here today—will ever forget the briefing we received from a Tornado pilot about the missions he had flown. That young man told us what he felt before, during and after the terrifying hours he had lived through. The impression of calm, cool professionalism in a man properly trained and superbly equipped with a machine in which he had full confidence will certainly stay with me for the rest of my life. It demonstrated the professionalism and adaptability of the Royal Air Force and the courage of all the crews undertaking sortie after sortie, many four or five hours long or more and against heavily defended targets.
Our Committee will take some oral evidence later this month from our air commander in the Gulf Air Vice-Marshal Wratten and some of those who served on his staff during hostilities. Undoubtedly, we shall draw some detailed lessons for the future. On this occasion, I am sure that all the members of my Committee would wish me to pay unstinting tribute to the magnificent performance of the RAF in the Gulf, which flew virtually every aircraft in its repertory from the oldest to the newest and the largest to the smallest. I pay our tribute to not only the fine air crew who lost their lives—to be added to that given so forcibly by my right hon. Friend the Minister—but to those who died in training before hostilities began. Let us note that the RAF is yet again involved in the area, with the Hercules and the Chinooks, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, some of which have come from RAF Odiham in my constituency.
It is almost a year since we heard evidence from the Ministry of Defence on the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment. We published our report last November and the Government replied in February this year. They told us that progress had been encouraging and said:
"Although in the light of the history of the project we must be cautious"
those are well chosen words—
"we are looking forward to future stages of the recovery programme with confidence."
That is good news. The House can only hope that the Government's confidence—the Committee also expressed guarded confidence about the way ahead—is justified in the event.
Perhaps it would be useful to rehearse some of the Committee's findings. The programme was designed to upgrade or replace the basic air defence radar system covering the United Kingdom—ground radars, the command and control system and the communications system—at a total cost of over £600 million at 1989 prices. Half of that would be paid for by NATO funds. NATO rules on procurement are less than perfect and regrettably, in order to qualify for funds, the normal development and

465
risk reduction phases of a complex programme were omitted. That is one lesson which I hope has been well and truly learned.
A major problem has arisen over the computerised integrated command and control system—ICCS—and in particular over the data handling system software. As a result of those defects in the overall system, the formal acceptance by the RAF of the new system, due originally in early 1987, is now unlikely until the middle of 1992. There have been other reasons for the delay, but in broad terms we concluded that those software problems had delayed delivery by more than four years, with inevitable adverse operational implications for our air defences, although the existing system remains just technically viable.
The mention of software problems in debates such as this has a certain inevitability, and such problems are certainly familiar to our Committee. The Ministry has told us that, far from lagging behind the commercial world, it has played a leading role in establishing best practices. But the fact remains that one project after another has suffered software difficulties. That has applied to Nimrod, Ptarmigan, BATES, frigate command and control and the vertical-launched Sea Wolf. The list is endless.
We look forward to seeing how the new Ministry of Defence guidelines can improve matters. That is a major challenge facing Dr. McIntosh, the new chief of defence procurement, and I know, from conversations I have had with him, that he is well aware of it. I take this opportunity, on behalf of my Committee colleagues, to welcome him to his new task and wish him well in the years to come. If he can continue the reform of the procurement system with the verve and skill that Sir Peter Levene showed, he will be a great asset to the Ministry of Defence.
The report and the Government's reply raised a number of other issues. Without going into them now, I draw the attention of the House to paragraphs 60 to 67 on the delays in delivering fairly standard mobile radars off the shelf, which I fear reflect only too clearly the aura of delay which still hangs over too much of procurement.
There is a sense of anxiety lest, in the understandable euphoria following the magnificent performance by the RAF in the Gulf, we overlook the history of the air defence procurement problems of the recent past. One thinks of Nimrod, Foxhunter, now IUKADGE, the Bloodhound replacement, and so on. On a more optimistic note, I believe that the systems, once completed, will be first-class; I am delighted that our AWACS aircraft are now being delivered, and I have been glad to read the reports of the performance of the F3 in the Gulf.
As for the options for change as they affect the RAF, the Committee asked that the transcript of the evidence that we heard last week from the RAF should be tagged as relevant to the debate, together with some written answers that we received from the Ministry on detailed matters. We shall report to the House as soon as we can, but I cannot anticipate our conclusions. Meanwhile, those two documents are in the Library, and at this stage I shall simply draw the attention of the House to a few broad issues that arise.
The first is, roughly speaking, the halving of RAF Germany and the major task that follows that of shuffling
466
around the personnel and aircraft so as to ensure that the people, who are the RAF's most valuable asset, are not so messed about that they want to leave the service.
As a result, we can expect major changes in the support area in the United Kingdom, possibly comparable with what is in the wind in terms of naval support, which is causing enough controversy. Stations must be closed, there will be increasing contractorisation and so on. Those are all issues which I hope the Ministry of Defence is addressing urgently and cogently.
It is important that we leave bases in Germany with dignity and decency. There seems to be the prospect of some unseemly squabbling about financial arrangements as we vacate bases, as our claims for the value of improvements made are met by German claims on dilapidation and pollution. That will in due course also apply to military bases, workshops and so on. After almost half a century of British protective presence in Germany, I hope that our departure, initially from Gutersloh and Wildenrath, will be properly conducted.
Arising out of that is the need to recognise that all deep-seated assumptions must be questioned. In that context, we must ask why we need to keep Harriers in north-west Germany, practically on the Dutch-German border, and why, in particular, we need them there. The same questions must be asked about the remaining Tornado squadrons. Where now are their targets in NATO's war planning, and is Bruggen the best place for them? All such questions are thrown up by the dramatic changes that have taken and are taking place.
Speaking for myself, I am concerned that we still do not have a coherent strategy for the way forward for our services; that applies particularly, in the context of today's debate, to the Royal Air Force. We have made reductions, which may be right, sensible and necessary. But to enable the Government to justify them fully in strategic terms, we must be told what the Government's strategic plans are for the defence of Europe in the future.
Do they know? I cannot believe they do. "Options for Change" was published without consulting our NATO allies. They have been consulted, we are told, ever since, but if we cannot, in the new scene in which we find ourselves in Europe, come to a collective conclusion about the task, how can we, having always been in the forefront as one of the leading nations in contributing to NATO's defence, be sure that the changes that we are now making will enable us to continue to play as constructive and leading a role?
I am not arguing that the changes that we have made in bringing home the Tornado squadrons is wrong. I cannot do that but, by the same token, I do not see how the Government can argue that it is right until they can tell us that there is a new NATO strategy and that the European Governments have together come to terms with the new risks, with how they must be matched, and with how we shall ensure stability in the new Europe. Only then can we know which nation shall carry out which task in support of what part of that endeavour.
I say that in the context of the RAF because this is an RAF debate, but the same applies right across the spectrum. My fear is that we shall, for financial reasons—we are all under pressure to reduce budgets—take piecemeal decisions across the services, which will mean that, in the end, when we have reached collective conclusions about how best to secure the stability in the new Europe, we shall say, "We are sorry. We should like

467
to have done that, but now we do not have the correct mix or balance of forces with which to make that contribution."
It is for NATO to mount the new strategy. It is for the NATO Council—not necessarily for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary but for the Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers and Heads of Government collectively—to decide what we shall provide by way of a European insurance policy to defend our future economic interests, which are the stability of the whole region of Europe. When we have done that, it will be for the various Governments collectively to decide how best we can contribute, and we can make a much better contribution in certain areas of defence than we can in others. I shall not go into those, because this is a more narrowly focused debate. At that time, and only then, shall we be able to say, "That is the balance of forces we need."
We shall then be able to say that not just for one task but so that we can respond to contingencies that may arise but which cannot now be anticipated. Kuwait and the Falklands are the two latest examples, but such contingencies are always happening. In the past we have always been able to cope. The RAF has been able to make its contribution not because we had plans for a contingency but because the commitment to NATO was at such a level that we knew that we could strip it and attend to whatever emergency arose.
That is the way in which we have coped. Indeed, hon. Members may recall with surprise that we could not have coped with the outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland in 1969 if we had not denuded the Rhine Army, enabling us to send reinforcements to protect the Catholic minority. That was how the whole thing started there. I was part of the planning process when blocks of soldiers were removed from Germany and sent to Northern Ireland. We knew that, if hostilities broke out or there was a period of tension, they could be sent back.
The same occurred at the time of the Falklands, and it was certainly true of the Gulf. One need only consider the position of RAF Germany in the Rhine Army in the last six months to see what had to be sacrificed there so that we could make the contribution that we made. However, that will not be the case in the future. With the inevitably smaller forces that we shall possess, we shall have to plan specifically how, whether and, if so, in what measure we shall respond to out-of-area events.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister propose, in the very near future, a coherent, strategic plan? I know that he has a major struggle, battling against the Treasury, the services, and people like me who urge him to produce a coherent plan. "Options for Change" is not yet an answer to our problem but merely some suggestions. We need an answer urgently, so that we can plan for the future defence expenditure to which we shall commit ourselves.
Most important of all, it will allow us to thank our services for their magnificent performance in the Gulf and to say, "This is your future. You may be smaller, but this is where you are going, that is what we want you to do, and this is what we shall provide for you to carry out that coherent, strategic task." That is the way to earn the gratitude of our services. The way to earn their distrust is to continue to make piecemeal cuts because of Treasury drives, without being able to inform them of that comprehensive strategic plan.
5.40 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the nature of events, I frequently find myself following the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), but I find increasingly that I sympathise with his opinions. The last passage of his speech, in which he said that he was speaking for himself, was extremely powerful and will strike a chord on both sides of the House.
That most urbane of American politicians, Mo Udall from Arizona, once said, after two days at a convention of the Democratic party, of which he was a distinguished member, that the problem was that
"everything has been said but not everyone has said it."
The way in which that quote may appear to affect this debate should not be dispelled, because the importance of the issues before us is such that many topics need to be emphasised and underlined and they should be the subject of contributions from more than one Member of the House.
I add my tribute to the men of the Royal Air Force of all ranks who served, in all capacities, in the course of the hostilities in the Gulf—[HON. MEMBERS: "And women."]—and the women too.
Like the hon. Members for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and for East Hampshire, I had the good fortune to visit the forces toward the end of last November. It was the occasion of the visit of the Select Committee on Defence, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan and I were made temporary honorary members of the Committee for the purpose of the visit. We were welcomed by the Chairman and enabled to obtain first-hand impressions of the state of readiness of our troops in a way that could not have been conveyed by word of mouth.
In Dhahran and Muharraq, one could not help but be impressed, not by the demonstrative nature of the men of the RAF but rather by the quiet and undemonstrative—even matter-of-fact—way in which they contemplated the tasks before them. Those tasks involved high risks and demanded skills of the highest order.
I hope that the House will understand if I pay tribute to 43 squadron of the RAF, normally based at RAF Leuchars in my constituency, which served with great distinction in the Gulf hostilities.
Another group of people who made, indirectly, a substantial contribution to our effort in the Gulf are the wives of those who were serving there. My wife and I visited at RAF Leuchars a group of those wives whose husbands were serving in the Gulf. It would be wrong to describe those ladies as plaster saints, but they possessed extraordinary common sense and good humour. I left feeling inspired by their understanding of what their husbands were engaged in, and their commitment to ensuring that the tasks to which their husbands had set their hand were successfully carried through. However, even that robust commons sense could not disguise the strain that many of them clearly felt at the conversion—at least for them—of peace into wartime.
One lady told me that, when her husband left for the Gulf, she had to explain to her employer that during Christmas school holidays it would be impossible for her to continue to work because she would have to look after her school-aged children. The employer's response was that his business could not cope with that, so he would have to dismiss her. Clearly, that family suffered a substantial loss, which was irrecoverable under any of the

469
schemes available to meet the costs incurred by those sent to the Gulf. It was a financial sacrifice that may have made it even more difficult to sustain the emotional sacrifice which separation from her husband obviously imposed.
As we approach this debate, we do so against the background—as the hon. Member for East Hampshire so forcefully reminded us—of the unresolved issues raised by the publication of "Options for Change". All parties in the House are now committed to reductions in defence expenditure in different ways, at different levels and over different periods. However, when we made that commitment, we did so on the basis of a number of assumptions.
First, we assumed that the conventional forces in Europe treaty would be signed, ratified and observed in spirit and in letter. Secondly, we assumed that the reduction in tension between east and west would continue. Thirdly, we asumed that the Soviet Union would proceed in an orderly way along the path of reform. Fourthly, we assumed—perhaps a negative assumption—that it was unlikely that the United Kingdom forces would be engaged in serious operations in the foreseeable future, other than in defence of our own territorial integrity. All four of those assumptions have been proved, to a greater or lesser extent, to be optimistic. The first three may yet be achieved, but the fourth has proved unjustified.
A passage in the evidence of the Select Committee, in which the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) asked questions of some of those giving evidence, reflects the suspicion on both sides of the House that the Government's proposals enshrined in "Options for Change" are Treasury-driven. If that is so, it must be a substantially illegitimate way in which to proceed.
The proper approach to such matters must be found in a series of questions. First, what is the nature of the threat that the United Kingdom faces, actually or prospectively? Secondly, what is the nature of our responsibilities to our allies and others? Thirdly, what is needed to meet the first of those and to discharge the second, in terms of manpower and equipment? Fourthly, and perhaps most comprehensively, what financial resources are necessary to provide the manpower and equipment to meet the threat and discharge those responsibilities?
I cannot see how the first and second of those questions can be answered until we have a clearer view of the Soviet Union's fate, until the NATO review has been completed, and until there is a long-term view of the stability of the middle east. If we cannot answer the first two questions, plainly we should not address questions three and four.
I would not fault Ministers for caution in the matter, although I fault the Government for unnecessary secrecy. The passage of arms between the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and a witness on 24 April may well pass into the history of Whitehall. It resulted in the Chairman being able to substantiate the point that he was making by reference to what he had been told in the NAAFI, but he was told by the witness that, although the Chairman might tell the public anything he liked, the witness could not confirm or deny it. It was a most extraordinary exchange. I wonder whether it is in the national interest to have such secrecy, which only
470
encourages suspicion. In the context of the matters under discussion, it seems much more likely that such secrecy will also encourage partisanship.
It is the duty of Opposition parties, no less in defence than any other sphere, to subject the Government to scrutiny. We had an interesting illustration of that a moment or two ago, in the exchange between the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on the Bloodhound missile. The Minister of State gave a most interesting answer. He said that the withdrawal of the missile would not cause our air defence to be degraded. We must put that answer in the context of what he had previously been saying—that for some time the missile had been making no contribution to our air defence. He was effectively saying that, if we got rid of something that was making no contribution, it would not affect the total contribution.
The Minister of State did not address the issue of the gap and how it would be filled—I do not think that the hon. Member for Clackmannan pressed it as hard as he might. Will there be a replacement? If there is, is that not because there is a perceived need for one?
Mr. Alan Clark: There is no gap.
Mr. Campbell: The Minister says from a sedentary position that there is not a gap, but my reading of the evidence taken before the Defence Select Committee suggests that there was such a gap.
During the hostilities in the Gulf, the Opposition fulfilled their responsibility for scrutinising the Government's policy. But there was such a broad consensus that hon. Members were able, with some honourable exceptions, to unite around the main thrust of Government policy, supported by the United Nations resolutions. I suspect that there is at present in the House greater unanimity on defence matters than there has been for some time. As we move to a series of decisions of great significance, wold there not be a better chance of reaching the right decisions, if the Government were to take the House more fully into their confidence? The answer to that question is incontrovertibly in the affirmative.
Before turning to some of the longer-term issues, I shall mention two matters of more immediate, almost domestic, concern. They arise out of the existence of RAF Leuchars in my constituency. The issue of low flying is frequently brought before the House in tones of outrage, frustration and even alarm by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) raised such a case this week. However, in a constituency such as mine where there is an operational base, low flying of a different sort occurs that causes no less inconvenience. That is especially the case when, as recently, the operational conversion unit has been engaged to replace Phantoms with Tornados.
Ministers have shown commendable alacrity in consenting to my request to institute a noise survey to establish whether there is a different footprint of noise from the Tornados and, if so, whether additional properties may be elligible for insulation grants. The result of that survey is expected in June. I hope that if, as I suspect, that survey reveals that there are properties that now fall within the footprint, resources will be made available to provide insulation.
It is incumbent on me to draw attention to the fact that two primary schools within the immediate vicinity of RAF

471
Leuchars—at Leuchars and at Guardbridge—frequently suffer disturbance because of ordinary operations at the base. So far, the Ministry of Defence and Fife regional council have been unable to resolve that problem. I hope that some sympathetic consideration will be brought to bear on that issue.
Ministers may also recall the robust campaign mounted in my constituency and the surrounding district against the proposal to withdraw search and rescue operations from RAF Leuchars. That campaign was only partially successful, as the ultimate decision was to restrict operations to daylight hours only. However, those involved, some of whom are present now, were well satisfied with persuading the Ministry of Defence that the capability at RAF Leuchars should be maintained.
Recently, the Secretary of State was civil enough to tell me that the Ministry of Defence has received an unsolicited bid for the contractorisation of part of search and rescue operations. He said that that bid was to be examined by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in due course. I urge the Government not be seduced by any short-term financial gain that they think they may achieve by the contractorisation of those essential services. In putting the matter thus, I express no disrespect to those who operate civilian search and rescue services. Aircraft based at Stornoway and Sumburgh fulfil their responsibilities in a capable and professional way. That is hardly surprising, as I understand that they are crewed almost entirely by former RAF pilots.
The military search and rescue requirement is best met by dedicated personnel and equipment. There may be a role for reserves, but that can only be supplementary to the principal capability. I think it has already been drawn to Ministers' attention that dependence on contract, rather than on the relationship of those who serve the Crown, in circumstances where the provision of search and rescue is required, can be subject to industrial dispute. The services are emergency services which, by their very nature, are required to be on call 24 hours a day. I hope that the Government will accept that the present arrangement, as a consequence of which the military component is kept well honed and extremely effective, is one that they will be willing to continue to support.
Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way and for his earlier comments about the assistance that he has received. Will he remind Ministers that civilian pilots cannot be posted in times of emergency to areas of need? Surely, one of the lessons to have come out of the Gulf is that we were able to deploy personnel because they were there, trained and able to go out and perform the job immediately. That cannot be accomplished by civilian personnel.
Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it underlines my next point—that existing arrangements are well established and have an integrated place in the overall activities of the Royal Air Force. The attempt to add civilians, no matter how qualified or willing, inevitably seems likely to cause difficulties, especially in times of hostilities.
It is true that, if military operations were discontinued, that might produce a pool of trained personnel. However, that pool would eventually be exhausted and, if private training were required to be part of the civilian undertaking for search and rescue, the ultimate cost to the
472
Ministry of Defence might be greater. Ministers should not discount the important contribution to service morale made by the fact that search and rescue is firmly based in the service itself. Nor should we underestimate the contribution to civilian morale of what is sometimes described as the friendly yellow helicopter coming quickly into view—a constant reminder of the professionalism of the Royal Air Force.
There is a great deal of affection for the Wessex, some of which are nearly 30 years old; but the Sea King has an enhanced capability, and the arguments in favour of search and rescue are only underlined by the move from the Wessex to the Sea King—a possibility to which I hope the Government will give serious consideration, since it would enhance search and rescue capability.
I share the concern of others about the fact that the rate of attrition of the Tornado GR1 in the Gulf hostilities was relatively high. I know that a number of explanations for that are being traded in defence circles. I appreciate that it would be quite wrong to invite the Minister to confirm or deny any of those on an occasion such as this. As he properly said, the Ministry is engaged in a detailed analysis of the lessons that must be learned. It appears to be being claimed that only one loss occurred while the JP233 was being delivered, and that other weapons were being delivered during four other losses. I hope that, during the Ministry's analysis, careful consideration will be given to establishing the facts and to the lessons to be learned.
I observe that the Secretary of State told the Defence Select Committee in evidence that the United States was anxious that we should provide the JP233, which represented a capacity that that country did not possess. We know that delivering the weapon requires the aircraft to fly very low and that, as a consequence, they may he exposed to anti-aircraft artillery, to which they would not be exposed if they were operating at medium or high level.
It is being claimed also that RAF tactics changed after the first week. I hope that, if they were changed, the reasons for that change will be clearly understood and that the lessons from it will be learned.
We must ask ourselves whether the achievement of the delivery of the JP233 justifies the risks of that delivery. We have already heard of the possibility of a stand-off weapon to fulfil the same task—I understand that the United States wants to achieve that. If it is possible to achieve the same effect with a stand-off weapon involving less risk to men or aircraft, that is desirable.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the European fighter aircraft. I am more and more convinced of the need for it and for the continued participation of the United Kingdom in the project through to production. The issue was raised at defence questions earlier this week, when the Minister of State, with characteristic bravura, swept aside all doubts about German participation.
We have to be careful about this Minister; he brings a certain intellectual raffishness to our proceedings, but we must not allow the style to obscure the substance. We cannot ignore the fact that there has been a reduction in the German requirement; or that a working party composed of the CDU, the CSU and the FDP—the parties that form the German coalition Government—has been set up to evaluate whether the EFA is the best option for the Luftwaffe. It will be some time before it reaches any conclusion and it is believed to be considering the Mig 29, among other options, as an alternative.

473
We know that the EFA could fulfil a number of roles for the United Kingdom. In particular, it can provide a quality of agility which the F3 version of the Tornado was not designed to provide. What if Germany were to withdraw? Would the production phase continue to be viable; what would the unit costs of each aircraft be? If fewer aircraft were constructed, it is likely that the unit costs will rise, not fall—not least because all the expenditure on research and development would have to be allocated to a smaller number of aircraft.
Mr. Mates: Perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman. I put this very question to British Aerospace when I was becoming more worried about German withdrawal. British Aerospace advised the Committee that a German pull-out would make the project marginally cheaper, because all the research and development costs have already been allotted between the countries and will have been paid for. The problem is that German labour costs are higher than those of any other country, so without those labour costs forcing the prices up, there will be a small reduction in costs—strange as that may seem.
Mr. Campbell: I well understand the difference between the labour costs in the United Kingdom and in Germany, and I accept that the hon. Gentleman has pursued this matter a little more fully than I have. But in normal circumstances, it would be surprising to find a reduction in unit costs following a reduction in the total number of aircraft produced.
I remain unconvinced by the Government's case for a tactical air-to-surface missile. It appears that the SRAM-T is by no means certain to continue; and that reservations about that have been expressed in the United States. We know that there is a French equivalent which the Government might be able to employ. I believe that there is almost certainly a case for NATO deploying the weapon, but it is hard to justify a United Kingdom need to acquire the capability, especially at a time when we are told that the budget of the MOD is likely to be under siege.
I hope that the Government will seriously consider the political consequences of the deployment of a tactical air-to-surface missile and take serious account of the proposition that, if it were deployed in Europe, it could be deployed only at a time of crisis, being stored under normal circumstances in the United States. The people of Germany will have strong views about this sensitive subject, so I hope that, if the Government remain confirmed in the belief that a tactical air-to-surface missile is necessary, they will take account of the political sensitivities that the issue raises.
There is no question but that we have achieved considerable success as part of the allied effort in the hostilities in the Gulf, in which the Royal Air Force played a full and admirable part. Success, however, should not blind us to the need for careful analysis of performance of men and equipment. In a curious way it is easier to be self-critical after having lost or done badly. The history of warfare knows many examples of the losers learning from a battle but the victors failing to. I earnestly hope that we shall not fall into that trap.
6.8 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I am glad that the Minister of State began his speech with a warm tribute to the Royal Air Force and the gallant part that it played in the successful outcome of the Gulf war. For those of us who sat in this House during those days, it was a humbling experience. I thought that our role contrasted dramatically with that of the air crew and the ground crew in the front line. I am pleased that I was not called to speak in the Gulf debates.
During the hostilities, I put a question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and expressed the hope that we would not leave the job half done. Militarily, we certainly did not, and the conflict was a classic example of how air power properly applied can be the crucial determinant in modern war. It can also be said that, if air power had been deployed earlier, Saddam Hussein could have been deterred from his aggression. The Royal Air Force did just that vis-a-vis Iraq and the protection of Kuwait in 1961. Even after Kuwait was absorbed into Iraq by naked force, the rapid deployment of allied aircraft ensured the protection of Saudi Arabia.
In the Gulf conflict, Royal Air Force personnel showed courage, stamina and above all adaptability. An example of that was seen about halfway through the conflict, when air supremacy had been obtained, in the precision bombing of bridges, communication links and other key targets. It could be achieved only by the use of intelligent munitions.
As our Tornados did not, and still do not yet have laser designators, Buccaneers, which are normally employed in a maritime attack role, were sent at short notice from Lossiemouth to designate the targets. Tornados equipped with Paveway laser-guided bombs were then able to hit those targets from medium altitude, a tactic that they were not normally trained to carry out. The policy of using the most experienced crews for the job and forming composite squadrons meant that the necessary adaptability was successfully achieved.
Tribute has rightly been paid to the transport and Nimrod forces, and I should like especially to mention the Jaguar. It is reckoned to be an aging aeroplane, but those who worked on it and served with it knew that it could carry a heavy load a long way and that it was an effective close support aircraft. This proved to be the case, both with the French air force and the Royal Air Force in the Gulf, and our composite Jaguar squadron performed exceptionally well, fortunately without loss.
I regret that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not stress more strongly the importance of maintaining a strong defence industrial base in the United Kingdom, as that is of strategic interest to our services and of vital economic interest to our people, not least during a recession. Many questions were left unanswered but I am sure that, in the winding-up speech, some answers will be provided. I was told by the previous Secretary of State for Defence that the EH101 helicopter was to be the utility helicopter for the RAF. Now we have absolutely no idea of the helicopter that will be used for medium lift. We also know that the Wessex and ultimately the Puma will need to be replaced. The Nimrods on maritime patrol cannot continue ad infinitum, and a new maritime patrol aeroplane will have to be procured. The need for a medium level SAM to replace Bloodhound has already been mentioned in the debate.

475
The Minister begged more questions than he answered when he spoke about the future of the F3 Tornado in air defence. He speculated about whether there would be a mid-life update. We also know that the aircraft has some structural fatigue problems that need to be addressed. We must hear more about how the aircraft will fit into the overall air defence of this country in the medium term.
The Minister again adopted the interrogative mode when speaking about the European fighter aircraft in the medium and longer term. The aeroplane is the essential backbone of the RAF air defence of the future, and will also be essential for close air support. It will be a highly flexible, versatile aircraft, and if the Minister has doubts about it, he should at least spell out the alternatives.
Mr. Alan Clark: I have no doubts.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am glad to hear that, because it resolves much of my uncertainty. I hope that it reassures the House.
During the Gulf war, the transport force was utilised at an exceptionally demanding rate. One wonders how this has affected the overall airframe life of the C130 which was getting a bit long in the tooth anyway. What are the medium-term plans for updating the transport force of C130s and VC10s?
Some hon. Members mentioned the tactical air-to-surface missile and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) spoke about it at some length. A stand off nuclear capability for the RAF is important as part of the maintenance of a graduated deterrent by the United Kingdom. Unlike the Government, I believe that we shall need an intelligent anti-armour weapon with some stand-off capability. This has been cancelled for the time being. It is not wise to put the GR5 and GR7 Harriers into service without such a weapon, and the Jaguar and, ultimately, the European fighter aircraft will also need it. I do not wish to weary the House with these detailed points.
Mr. Alan Clark: As always, I am listening with tremendous interest to my hon. Friend's catalogue. I shall give a detailed reply in my winding-up speech. I have been adding up my hon. Friend's shopping list, and f have calculated that he is advising expenditure of between £15 billion and £18 billion. My hon. Friend speaks with great sincerity and there is a good case for all that he recommends, but his speech demonstrates the immense difficulty, even if one had constant budget levels, of apportioning expenditure to the three services.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because his intervention enables me to curtail my speech. He has made several of the points that I had intended to make.
Important equipment decisions will need to be taken in the fairly short term. It is all very well to have options for change, but to maintain morale the services require some early decisions. I hope that the process of decision making will be advanced, so that we may have a proper debate on the defence review, because defence review it is although the Government have always been coy about using the phrase. During the 1980s, I wrote books about the need for a review and was ridiculed for doing so.
The problem of resources confronted by the Government is a real one, and they have at least made clear the kind of service that they want. I am glad that they
476
have done so. The Minister said that he wished the Royal Air Force to be a balanced force able to react to the needs of the 1990s and beyond. If it is to be a balanced force, it will have to be equipped with weapon systems of the type that I have outlined. They are weapons which are needed across the spectrum of capability.
If we have a lack of resources, I hope that at least there is no lack of intellectual investment in defence. The problem is that, over recent years, there has been all too little. We all knew that the issue of British forces in Germany would come to a head before too long. We all recognised that the defence procurement budget was growing beyond the rate of inflation and beyond the sustainability of long-term budgets, and that something had to be done. I believe that the solution lies in radical manpower policies.
In the past, we could rely on a virtually all-professional force but, as the Minister explained so eloquently in his speech, the Royal Air Force in the Gulf war needed to mobilise the Royal Auxiliary Air Force aero-medical and air movement squadrons, and needed the help of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve intelligence and meteorological specialists. The United States Air Force, which bore the brunt of the conflict, could not have won the war without the air transport force, half of which was reservist. Without the significant contribution made to the conflict on operations by the Air National Guard, for example, the New York Air National Guard flying F-16s, and the Alabama Air National Guard flying F-4s on Wild Weasel defence suppression missions, the war might not have been won.
I believe that we can sensibly reduce the regular element if we compensate with an increase in reserves. Reserves need to be paid only when they are training. They do not need pensions or married quarters. They make a contribution to the civil community through their full-time jobs. The concomitant to that is giving a good career to the regulars and investing in training. I am a little perplexed that the Royal Air Force, however, should be moving away from apprentice training at Halton and should have done away with cadet training at Cranwell. The experience of air forces in all other countries of the developed world has led them to put more rather than less emphasis on training for the regulars.
I am confident that the Royal Air Force will have a key part to play in our defence in future. It may be much less orientated towards a static presence on the continent of Europe, but the inherent flexibility and mobility of air power will be indispensable to the United Kingdom.
6.22 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: I endorse everything that has been said in tribute to the men and women of the Royal Air Force for their extraordinary performance in the Gulf war. Like other members of the Select Committee on Defence, I had the extraordinary good fortune to visit our forces in the Gulf on two occasions, first, at the end of November and, secondly, in mid-March. On the first occasion I found that many of the men and women to whom I talked were apprehensive about the future, hoping that Kuwait could be freed without the need for military action, but determined that, if it became necessary, they would do the job that they had joined to do, to the best of their ability and in a way which would make the people at home proud of them. That is exactly what they did.

477
When I went back to meet service men and women the second time, I found them relieved that the war was over, with so few casualties. They were quietly pleased that they had done the job they set out to do so swiftly and efficiently, although they were sad that they had lost some good friends. My experience of those two visits underlines the view that I have always had when I meet members of our armed forces—that we have every right to be proud not just of their courage and determination but of their sheer professionalism.
On the first occasion when we met commanders in the Gulf, those who were with me may recall that the people in command of the Royal Air Force, undoubtedly aware of the resources at their disposal, were bullish about the prospects. They took the view that it was at least possible that, after a period of sustained attack from the air, the Iraqi forces would be likely to crack. The Army, predictably, were much more sceptical and took the view that territory could be reclaimed only through the use of forces on the ground.
When we went back for the second visit, there was no real dispute that the extraordinary success of the land war had been due largely to the sheer erosion of the Iraqi ability to fight as a result of the sustained air attack. Jane's Defence Weekly of 6 April analysed the position and summed it up effectively when it said:
"The objectives of the coalition ground assault were achieved with incredibly low casualty figures. It was airpower that made this imbalance of damage possible, because airpower alone could attack every part of the Iraqi military—every one of the 500,000 troops, every factory, every ammunition dump, and every vehicle—while putting only a few hundred coalition aircraft and their crews at risk."
That underlines the absolutely essential element of air supremacy in modern warfare. It is doubtful whether any army in the world could have stood up to the technologically based air bombardment which was directed against the Iraqis. That is one lesson that we learned from the Gulf war.
The second lesson, which has been touched on already in the debate, is the fact that smart munitions on the whole worked extremely well. We saw some of the videos on television. Those of us who visited the forces afterwards were shown more examples of the incredible accuracy of some of the systems. We have been talking for 20 to 25 years of emerging technologies on the battlefield; in the light of the Gulf war it is obvious that they are here to stay. We must also recognise that more and more nations are acquiring the capabilities of electronic warfare. It is an expensive process, only partially offset by the lower manpower levels involved, but there is no alternative to going down that costly path if the RAF is to maintain the capacity to fight an effective conventional war.
I also endorse what was said earlier about the importance of stand-off weapons systems. It is right to try to learn the lesson of the Gulf war in terms of the review of "Options for Change" and the mapping out of the way forward for our armed forces in a different environment. I strongly endorse the comments of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, on the cuts. They were hardly options; they were firm and clear cuts because options were not offered to anybody. If one offers options, there are choices. These were not choices but straightforward cuts.
478
It is a matter for concern that the cuts were imposed without discussion with NATO. NATO was told about them afterwards, but there was no consultation beforehand. That is sad and strange. I recall, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members do, the criticism directed against some of our NATO allies when they, for what they regarded as sound financial reasons, reduced their defence expenditure and cut their defence contributions. It is strange that we should have done exactly the same as we have condemned others for doing in the past.
As we consider the size and shape of British forces for the future, there is widespread acceptance of the need for much more flexible and mobile forces, able to adapt to changing circumstances and sudden emergencies. The chief of the air staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Harding, told the Royal Aeronautical Society recently that the overall direction of the RAF in the 21st century had to be towards a multi-role capability. He said:
"We must not invest very large sums of money in equipment and capabilities that are highly specialised, which are specific to one scenario."
That is sound advice. I am glad to be reassured that the European fighter aircraft will adhere to the multi-role philosophy and that it will fulfil all the roles of the Tornado. Certainly, it will be able to undertake a substantial number of differing roles.
I share the concern of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, about the security of the German involvement in this programme because, like him, I read with interest that the Germans are now evaluating six potential alternatives to the European fighter aircraft. We know that they have reduced their declared uptake. The United Kingdom is now committed to taking 250 aircraft out of a total of 675, and although we may argue as to whether unit costs will be increased or decreased if the Germans pull out, German withdrawal from the programme would certainly create difficulties.
That is something that the Select Committee on Defence explored with Ministry of Defence officials at our meeting last week. It asked a direct question and the official appearing before it said:
"If Germany did not go ahead with the production phase at all it most certainly would have implications for Britain and, we would have to consider our position at that stage."
That seems to be a classic civil service formula for the fact that there would be difficulties if Germany pulled out. All that I am saying at this stage is that I hope the Government have some fallback position to guard against that eventuality.
Turning to the role of the RAF in relation to nuclear weapons, I am one of those who believe that nuclear weapons have a role in the defence of Europe for as far ahead as we can see. The obvious threat from the Soviet Union may have diminished, although we may argue among ourselves how far it has diminished. However, we have to accept that there is very great uncertainty about the future state and condition of the Soviet Union. For example, if the Soviet Union were to break up into its constituent parts, all of us would have some fears about what might happen to the nuclear weapon arsenal which it now has. We must also recognise the risks of nuclear proliferation in third nations, which are a constant matter of concern.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, at the London summit last July, heralded a new strategy of making nuclear weapons truly weapons of last resort. But

479
it also made it clear that nuclear weapons will continue to play a central role in the overall strategy of the alliance for the prevention of war. While nuclear weapons remain a vital part of NATO strategy they must be credible, effective, responsive and survivable. There must be a mix of systems and a range of options open to alliance Governments, and that means that at a certain point nuclear modernisation has to be undertaken. There is no point in clinging to nuclear systems that are outdated or ineffective.
In my view, in the foreseeable future there will be a growing gap in NATO's sub-strategic nuclear arsenal. The Pershings and the ground-launched cruise missiles are being removed as a result of the INF treaty. The Lance missiles are obsolescent and are not to be replaced, and I welcome and support that decision. Nuclear artillery is likely to be withdrawn as a result of the result of the short-range nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union, and again I endorse that approach.
That would leave us with free-fall nuclear bombs to be delivered by manned aircraft and submarine and surface-launched cruise missiles as NATO's only sub-strategic nuclear systems in Europe. I believe that that is not a credible sub-strategic deterrent. It forces us to rely much too heavily on Trident missiles, from both the United States and the United Kingdom. Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Harding underlined that point in his recent lecture, when he said that the United Kingdom Government needed options in the nuclear basket in addition to Trident. He saw Trident, as I think most of us do, as a last-ditch weapon to be used only against a threat of total destruction. So I regard the case for a stand-off tactical air-to-surface missile with a nuclear capability as an extremely powerful one.
Manned aircraft are increasingly vulnerable to improving air defences and the Gulf war experience does not invalidate that assessment. The Iraqi air defences crumbled simply because of the sheer weight of the non-stop onslaught on them and we should be very unwise to assume that that sort of situation would be repeated in any conflict on the continent of Europe. In any case, the initial stage of the Gulf war demonstrated the importance of stand-off weapons capable of being launched from aircraft out of reach of the defenders' anti-aircraft systems.
TASM is an extremely flexible system. It can be used against a wide variety of targets: airfields, ports, barracks, troop concentrations, industrial facilities or even ships. It provides the ability to respond swiftly almost anywhere in the world. It has the flexibility to be retargeted during the aircraft's flight. It can deliver small numbers of nuclear warheads against widely spaced targets, and of course it enables the aircraft to be used in conventional or nuclear roles.
Other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have referred to possible United States deployments, which we understand are due some time in the mid-1990s. We all understand the political difficulties in the current situation in deploying those new nuclear systems on the continent of Europe, although logically as many nations as possible should take a share of responsibility for the nuclear defence of our continent. Those difficulties underline the importance of the United Kingdom programme to replace the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb by a tactical air-to-surface missile.
The Secretary of State told us last year that he hoped to be able to announce the choice of a TASM system for the
480
United Kingdom by the end of 1990. We now understand that the decision has been delayed for another year. We hear that there are problems with the Boeing SRAM-T system, one of the two American possibilities being considered. There is no secret about the fact that there are difficulties, to put it no higher than that, at Aldermaston over the design of a warhead for a British TASM system. And, of course, we know that the French are extremely anxious to see Anglo-French co-operation in developing the ASLP as an Anglo-French TASM system.
There have been suggestions that financial pressures may be one cause of delaying the programme. I hope very much that when the Minister replies to the debate he will make it clear that it is not financial pressures that have delayed the TASM programme. It is a vital issue for the RAF and indeed for our national defence. I hope that, when the Minister replies, we shall get a very clear statement of the current position.
6.36 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) for he, like the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), has shown that there is a rare consensus on defence and on where we should be going with the Royal Air Force.
I pay a tribute, as all speakers in the debate so far have, to the Royal Air Force for its outstanding performance in the whole Gulf theatre, to the Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Nimrod, Hercules and tanker crews, and of course to others who played an equally important part—in the VC10s, the Tristars and the communication squadrons—and who did so much throughout the whole period. It shows that the mix of aircraft required in a modern air force is substantial and that we cannot put all our eggs in two or three baskets. We need a wide variety of aircraft to cover a wide variety of operations.
Since 1945, all of us have seen the ever-growing importance of the helicopter. We saw from the huge numerical superiority of the American helicopters and our own substantial contribution what a vital part they play in modern warfare. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is giving very careful thought to what hon. Members have said tonight about replacement helicopters and types of helicopters. In many ways, they are the aircraft of the future and we must get on with it and not hold back because we cannot quite make up our minds what is the best design to go for.
I want to follow what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said about our search and rescue squadrons. They play a notable part in British national life—particularly, because of terrain and weather, in Scotland. They are based at Leuchars and Lossiemouth, and at Prestwick with the Royal Navy. Whenever there is a disaster of any sort, even one involving a single climber, there is the yellow helicopter setting a very fine example and showing brilliant airmanship in retrieving casualties in dreadful weather conditions. It is very important, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said, to ensure that our Royal Air Force crews have training in this extremely hazardous work so that, when they are required on operations abroad, they have the skill and experience to carry out their tasks.

481
I would be the last person to criticise the civilian helicopter service, which looks after search and rescue. After all, as has been said, the crews are trained by the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. However, in years to come, that may not be the case. Nobody doubts that Bristow could provide this service, but, in the national context, it should be largely a Royal Air Force responsibility. I hope that the Government believe so firmly in the Royal Air Force search and rescue squadrons that those squadrons will be allowed to continue into the distant future.
The air crews have rightly been praised, but I am glad that my right hon. Friend put in a good word for the ground crews, too. I remember from wartime days what an incredible feat of logistics and organisation it is to move a squadron from one place to another and maintain its ability to be operational within minutes. It is a great credit to the ground staff serving in the Gulf that they maintained aircraft capability so effectively for so long.
This week, there has been a great deal of publicity about the phasing out of the RAF's Shackletons. It is appropriate that we should pay a tribute to those aircraft and the crews who have flown them over such a long period. Eight Squadron, based at Lossiemouth, has set the very highest standards in every way. It is with a tear in our eye that we wave farewell. We wish the squadron well on its move to Waddington, where it will use Boeing aircraft.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned the Royal Auxiliary Air Force medical and movement squadrons, which were called out to serve during the Gulf war. I pay great tribute to them and to the many women who served with the aeromedical squadron.
I am glad that the Government have encouraged and organised a thanksgiving service in Glasgow cathedral this weekend. This is a very fitting time to pay tribute to those who lost their lives and to thank all those who returned safely for their wonderful service. It is sad that some clergymen have raised so much unnecessary controversy about the service.
It is clear that fighting a modern war requires a tremendous combination of offensive and defensive capability. If we are to be involved in campaigns overseas, it is essential that our forces be capable of being deployed swiftly. One comes to view "Options for Change" and the comments of the Select Committee on Defence with some doubt as to how far and how fast we are going. In some ways, it would be good if we were still at the Green Paper stage, so that we could comment on the options before decisions were taken. As it is, I fear that decisions will be made and that we shall have to fight a rearguard action to achieve the capability that we regard as best in terms of the threat, about which, at the moment, nobody is the least bit clear.
In that regard, I appreciate what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said about finance. Of course there are always opportunities to reduce expenditure in any large organisation, such as the Royal Air Force, the Army or the Royal Navy. However, we must keep a balance with operational capability and training requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood very appropriately mentioned the importance of Royal Air Force training. Without exceptional training, we could not
482
have achieved such success in the Gulf. I hope that, in the winding-up speech, we shall hear that there will be no reduction this year in the number of flying training hours. Training of this type is not something that can just be put down and picked up overnight. It has to be a continual operation, especially for the pilot of a fast jet.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East mentioned low-flying aircraft. The Select Committee has reported on this matter, and we have read the Government's comments with interest. I have supported low-flying training by the Royal Air Force. It is absolutely essential, as was proved by the skill of our pilots in the Gulf. But many members of the public, who are probably not so acutely aware of the importance of training, are concerned about the possibility of our having more low flying on account of attitudes in Germany and elsewhere on the continent. If the Government can say that the programme will continue much as before—that it will not be stepped up—many civilians will be reassured.
We still have heavy responsibilities in Northern Ireland, the Gulf and eastern Europe, and we have a heavy commitment to NATO. That is why I am so concerned that we may be moving rather faster than events justify. Reason for international concern often blows up at short notice out of nothing—and never more so than in the cases of the Falklands and the Gulf. When we are planning our defences, we must have a long lead. Operations cannot be planned overnight. Sophisticated weaponry necessitates planning years ahead. When the options are being considered, that fact must be borne in mind. I do not remember a time in my life—which some people may think has gone on far too long—when we had too many forces. We are always under pressure. Service men often work seven days a week, although one might think that they should work a normal week of five or five and a half days. We must try to balance our forces with the needs of the times. We can never be absolutely certain that there is not some dark, dangerous dictator lurking round the corner. We have to be prepared.
I am afraid that there are bound to be some cuts in defence expenditure, and Defence Ministers are concerned about the severe local consequences. RAF stations will be closed and defence orders will be lost. There are also serious political issues like Rosyth. Were we to lose regiments, there would be serious consequences. Our regiments have enormous support, countywide and countrywide. In nearly all cases, the standard of recruitment is very high. I can only very briefly touch on this problem, but what affects the Royal Air Force is equally serious for the other arms of the services.
In respect of one other matter, I urge the Government to act with foresight. Under the Armed Forces Act 1980 we were limited, to a certain extent, in calling out our reserves for service in the Gulf. This matter should not be swept under the carpet, on the ground that there will not be another crisis for five to 10 years. Let us get down to amending the 1980 Act next Session—or certainly the Session after—to provide for a much more effective means of calling out the reserves.
The Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the RAFVR and the Royal Navy and Army equivalents are made up of active reservists. Those people have volunteered to give their time, weekend after weekend, to prepare for a crisis. In many ways, they do not need to be asked to volunteer, as they already are volunteers. What they want is to be called out to serve by the Ministry of Defence. There are perfectly

483
adequate procedures if they cannot go for compassionate reasons. I hope that, in the event of another crisis, we shall not hesitate to call out active reservists, because they will respond to a man—or woman.
That should be clarified in the form of an Act of Parliament. It should be made clear, for instance, that the squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force could be called out to do guard duty at hard-pressed stations where the fitters were working morning, noon and night to repair and service aircraft to and from the Gulf. The guard duty could be done willingly by reservists, but they have so far been precluded from doing so. If, in a crisis, we have reservists who are real enthusiasts, let us use them: they will then feel that the whole object of their reserve life is being fulfilled.
We must look carefully at the future of the reserves. They are extremely cost-effective, as has already been pointed out. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons, the Defence Force flights and the Maritime Headquarters Unit are all very effective and are part of the line of battle of the Royal Air Force. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson): if only we could return to the days of the flying squadrons. In the days of the battle of Britain and before, they were the essence of the reserve forces in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and they have never failed when the country needed to be defended.
We must use the reserves, because so many men and women are involved. An enormous number of men and women want to serve this country, and welcome the opportunity of participating by engaging in military training. They want to own a share in the community. That will do an immense amount for their effectiveness at work, as well as the part that they play in the social life of the community. We must not let the reserves run down.
I keep hearing it said that, in the future, the reserves will be even more important in terms of "Options for Change". I should like that to be translated into action, because I believe that the promotion of the reserves of all three services is a real bull point.
We have learnt a good deal from the reports of the Select Committee inquiry and I pay tribute to the Chairman and members of that Committee for what they have achieved on our behalf. However, we should also pay tribute tonight to the RAF and to all those associated with it—and to the other services—for their outstanding performance in the Gulf. As a nation, we can take credit for something that was exceptionally well done.
6.52 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I want to raise three issues. The first is, of course, the Gulf war; the second is nuclear weapon modernisation, and the tactical air-to-surface missile; and the third is nuclear weapon safety, and the WE177—the free-fall hydrogen bomb.
The courage of our pilots in the Gulf war was beyond doubt. They did the job that they had been told to do, with devastating and destructive effectiveness. But—and here, as far as I am concerned, the consensus in the House ends—I believe that excessive force was used in that war. The allies deployed 2,790 aircraft. According to General McPeak, the Chief of Staff of the US air force, allied planes made a total of 109,876 sorties, and dropped 88,500 tonnes of bombs—50 per cent. more than were dropped in the whole of the Vietnam war. Apparently, 6,250 tonnes
484
were delivered by laser-guided smart weapon systems. In addition to that, fuel air explosives and mini-nuclear weapons were used—allegedly only against minefields, but no doubt they caused considerable loss of life. The RAF dropped 3,000 tonnes of weapons—more than 100 JP233 airfield denial weapons, which cost over £1 million each; and some 6,000 bombs, of which more than 1,000 were laser-guided. It fired more than 100 anti-radar missiles and 700 air-to-ground rockets.
All that bombing effectively bombed Iraq back into the stone age. I say that it was excessive force, and that is implied in the words of the United States service man who described it as a "turkey shoot". In the dying days of the war—and that is certainly the right description—more than 100,000 people were slaughtered, including civilians and many conscripts who were retreating in those final days.
Mr. Neville Trotter: Will the hon. Gentleman still call it a turkey shoot when I tell him that a constituent of mine, Mr. Croskery, was shot by the Iraqi army just after the invasion when trying to leave the country as an innocent civilian?
Mr. Cohen: It was a United States officer who described it as a turkey shoot. There is no need to go into the origins of the war, although I shall gladly do so if I am asked to. I still think that sanctions would have been a better way of resolving the conflict—and they still apply now—but we went to war, and, having done so, used excessive force. I do not think that the British people have been allowed to know the full horror; what they have seen amounts to a single photograph on an inside page of The Observer. In this country, excessive force has been matched only by excessive censorship.
As for smart weapons, I think that the war was a testing ground for them. It was, in a way, a training war—and that was part of the excessive force that was deployed. Even so, the weapons were not as surgical as was claimed. The United States bombed a civilian air shelter, causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. The RAF bombed the town of Fallujah, which can only be described as an atrocity. Overall in military terms, smart weapons were probably a success; but, in due course, they will be the source of a new arms race unless they are checked.
As for low flying, the problem did not relate to the bravery of the pilots, which was beyond argument; the problem related to the tactics laid down by the Ministry of Defence. Let us compare the Tornado GR1s with the US aircraft that were sent to the Gulf. Of the 42 British Tornado GR1s that were sent, six were lost in combat in the first week—another, I believe, was lost for another reason. That represents one in seven of the force. The US air force deployed approximately 1,400 aircraft, but lost only 13 in the course of the entire war—fewer than one in 100. In peacetime, too, our record of aircraft loss and loss of life among pilots is much greater than that in comparable air forces, including that of the United States. That is down to the tactics used by the Ministry of Defence.
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman really should not compare the number of casualties with the total number of aircraft deployed in the theatre of conflict. He should use the number of sorties flown, or the number of hours. That would be a reasonable comparison.
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman may not like those figures—one in seven, as against fewer than one in 100—but they represent the reality. As I have said, in peacetime our losses due to low flying are greater than those of the United States. Even the United States described our use of the GR1s as a suicide mission. That is down to the Ministry of Defence.
Those low-flying tactics put our RAF pilots into the only air space that had any air defence weapons—near the ground. One thing that the Iraqis were not short of were soldiers with machine guns and rifles. An individual soldier with an automatic rifle might not have had much chance of a hit, but many soldiers firing at the same target had a fairly high probability of hitting something, and that is what happened in the first week.
Mr. O'Neill: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Ministry of Defence was irresponsible in asking our pilots to take out airfields, something that they alone could do? Did the taking out of airfields in itself present a danger to the allies? If we had not taken out those airfields, they would have been able to respond, and the manner in which they responded would have created far more trouble for our troops than what happened in the first place.
Secondly, if we had not broken the heart and mind of the Iraqi air force in the first week, we might have had to deal with far greater problems. Thirdly, the Opposition supported that strategy as much as the Government, because we recognised the importance of air power, the capability not just of British, but of Saudi, Syrian, Egyptian and other air forces, in contributing to the effort. It meant that, if we could conduct a war in the air, we might prevent a potentially horrendous war from unfolding on the ground, with the loss of far more lives than the far too many lives that were actually lost.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Briefly, please.
Mr. O'Neill: This is my last point, by way of information. It seems that my hon. Friend requires such information because his understanding of the nature of the conflict and the strategy behind it is so out of line with what people saw as the objectives that he is distorting the character of the sacrifice that was made by our troops, whose bravery both he and I applaud. Their sacrifice was one that they were prepared for.
Mr. Cohen: As my hon. Friend says, I do not question the bravery and courage of our pilots. What I do question is the tactics. I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend justifying what I have described as excessive force. I do not think that he is right to say that our pilots alone could do that job. That is an insult to the United States air force, and it is not true. My hon. Friend is also going along with the myth that accompanied the build-up of the war, that the Iraqi war machine was the biggest and most dangerous around and was equivalent to that of the allies. That was done to justify this excessive force, when the reality was quite different.
Why, if what my hon. Friend says is right, did the Ministry of Defence change those tactics after the first week? They were changed because the losses were so great, because the tactics were so foolish. The truth of the matter is that the tactics were a consequence of the Ministry of Defence's obsession with low flying, which is seen as a tactic for a war in eastern Europe. That tactic was
486
completely inappropriate in this war, but the Ministry of Defence used Iraq as a training ground for a future war with the Soviet Union, resulting in unnecessary loss of life and expensive aircraft.
The next matter is probably not so controversial—tactical air-to-surface missiles, particularly the United States TASM and the short-range attack missiles (tactical)—SRAM-T—which is fitted to the Fl 5E aircraft. Will the Government say clearly whether they will allow SRAM-Ts to be based at United States bases in Britain? The Government cannot hide behind the pretence that that is a NATO decision which is yet to be made, because that is not the case. The Germans do not want SRAM-Ts on their soil and have made that clear, and the basing of F15E aircraft at Lakenheath and Bentwaters, to which the SRAM-T is designed to be fitted, was a bilateral decision of the United States and the United Kingdom, not a NATO one.
Does the Minister see the basing of SRAM-Ts in Britain as important to our defence or not? The Minister should not stay silent. He cannot stay silent. I do not think that it is important, because it is part of the nuclear weapons modernisation programme that was conceived and decided upon during the cold war and before the present phase in international politics.
Since then, there have been all sorts of changes in eastern Europe. Having lost eastern Europe as their starting point, Soviet air defences are relatively weak. The Warsaw pact has been wound up, and President Gorbachev has made real efforts towards achieving a reduction in nuclear weapons. The deployment of SRAM-T would aversely affect arms control agreements that we should be striving to achieve. It is not needed to deal with such out-of-area third-world threats as the Gulf war. The Iraqi air defences were overwhelmed with conventional weaponry. We do not need new nuclear missiles in those cases.
Those arguments do not just apply to the United States TASM based in Britain, but also suggest that the Government should not go ahead with the so-called British TASM, either buying the United States SRAM-T off the shelf or deploying the French missile built with American support, the ASLP.
Nuclear weapon storage facilities for TASMs at United States bases are still going ahead at Bentwaters, Lakenheath and Upper Heyford. They were originally proposed, again as part of the modernisation process, in 1986, but two weeks ago it was said that they would go ahead. Ironically, they are going ahead with NATO rather than with American money, despite the fact that SRAM-T is the result of a bilateral decision. Does that mean that the Minister wants TASMs and SRAM-Ts based here, despite their current irrelevance to international realities, or are the storage facilities going ahead so that SRAM-Ts come here anyway as a fait accompli in due course? We have a right to expect an answer from the Minister on that point.
Thirdly, I want to refer to the WE177, the free-fall hydrogen bomb, particularly its safety and the safety of other weapons as well. The recent Drell report in the United States has shown that many nuclear weapons, not just Trident, are not as safe as was previously thought. Some of the less safe American warheads are of the same vintage as the WE177 bomb. That is confirmed by the report on warhead safety published, I think last week, by Basic.

487
Excessive secrecy has surrounded British nuclear weapons, making it easy for Ministers to give bland assurances about weapon safety while allowing no independent checks. There is a so-called independent Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee, but that is covered by the Official Secrets Act. The Government's obsession with secrecy precludes any member of that committee who feels that a weapon is unsafe from telling anyone in Parliament or in public unless authorised to do so by Ministers. How can that be independent? Have the Government found some obscure definition of the word that is not in common use?
A recent opinion poll published in The Scotsman on Monday shows that 78 per cent. of respondents said that the British Parliament should have access to the same quality of information as the Americans about the safety or otherwise of their nuclear weapons. Fifty-eight per cent. thought that the transportation of nuclear weapons should be stopped until the safety questions had been resolved. The Government just hide behind their secrecy.
Let me tease the Government a little. I challenge the Minister to reassure the public and Parliament by telling us what safety features are included in British weapons design. Surely it cannot affect national security to say whether a nuclear weapon's pit is fire-resistant or that safer insensitive high explosives—IHEs—are used on all nuclear weapons. The Government's position on safety lacks credibility. The weapons are designed by AWRE Aldermaston, an organisation which cannot even organise safety features in its own A90 and A91 buildings. The Government expect us to believe that they have got the weapons right, so they must provide some answers about weapons safety.
In 12 years in power, the Government have not changed one iota. They want more nuclear weapons regardless of the international circumstances, and they are prepared to sacrifice hospitals and living standards to get them. A peace dividend is anathema to them, but the change will come. Britain's economic circumstances will not regard yet more bombs and missile as a priority. I hope that that change comes sooner rather than later.
7.10 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye early in this debate. As so oftens happens, just as one is beginning to take an interest in a debate, a flurry of telephone messages comes in and a local situation must be dealt with. I apologise for leaving the Chamber to tackle that matter. To be fair to other hon. Members, it behoves me to be rief'.
Mr. O'Neill: Oh, no.
Mr. Dykes: I shall be brief, notwithstanding the exhortation of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
Most of the points made by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) were phantasmagorical in the extreme and I do not propose to follow them. It was interesting for us to observe the fact that there is a gap on the Labour Benches on defence matters, notwithstanding the fact that officially the Labour party fully supported the Government's stance on the Gulf war. We know that there are still divisions in the Labour party and that was clear from the rather angry exchanges that took place earlier. I
488
was hoping for more of them, because it would have reminded the public that such a division exists and that the Labour party is not as monolithic on defence matters as Conservative Members are—
Mr. O'Neill: Monolithic?
Mr. Dykes: Yes, monolithic in the more attractive sense of the adjective and not the sense adduced by the hon. Member for Clackmannan.
That unity has always been one of our great strengths. The public has confidence in a Conservative Government on defence matters.
Mr. O'Neill: What about the Bruges group?
Mr. Dykes: I should resist the temptation to respond to sedentary interventions. The Bruges group is collapsing by the minute and we do not need to dwell on it tonight. The fact that it is in the news here at the moment is, in one sense, good rather than bad news.
We are presumably on the verge of constructing a Europeanwide defence policy after the NATO emergency period during the cold war. In that sense, presumably there are lessons to be learned from the Gulf conflict and the detailed modalities of defence policy with the use of land forces and air weapons.
Unless I am misrepresenting the Government's official policy, I am glad that we do not want a European Community defence policy. That would be an illogical proposition. In the confused state of the debate about some of the allies not taking part in warlike activities and being rather timid, there was a suggestion that there should be a Community defence policy. However, the European Community is the world's major civilian power—if I can use such a colloquial description. The Community does not have a defence parameter.
As I understand it, the Government are suggesting, subject to elaboration of these complicated issues, that the Community could participate in the development of security policy alongside foreign policy. I see the logic of a wider security policy background as part of the foreign policy configurations of the Community. We must bear it in mind that at least one country might have difficulty with questions of neutrality and those countries might not be able to participate. An overall umbrella concept of security policy is distinct from the narrower policy in a military sense. To bring the latter concept into the European Community is most strange. It is even stranger that Jacques Delors, who until then had often been accused of being too zealous in his promotion of the commanding heights of Community policy, suddenly said, on a visit to the Institute of Strategic Studies here, that there should be a Community defence policy. The whole issue has become very confused. We must now see what will develop in future, but the Royal Air Force will have an important role.
I am glad that official spokesmen are no longer accusing the allies of running away in the face of the war in the Gulf. The phrase, "running for the cellars," caused outrage in Germany and elsewhere, and quite rightly. That was an unfair attack on our German allies. Such accusations have now subsided, and things are returning to normal.
All hon. Members, even the hon. Member for Leyton, have paid tribute to the RAF and its courage in the Gulf. In adding my words to that tribute which the House has recognised unanimously on many occasions, I take

489
pleasure in the fact that I have the honour of having in my constituency part of No. 11 Group RAF Bentley Priory, one of the headquarters in the constellation that is commanded by Air Vice-Marshal Bill Wratten, who was the commander of the RAF forces in the Gulf.
I met Bill Wratten on Saturday night at a local civil function. Harrow had the privilege and honour earlier this year of according to RAF Bentley Priory the freedom of the borough. We recorded that Harrow is extremely proud of RAF Bentley Priory and RAF Stanmore Park and of what the RAF has done for this country. RAF Bentley Priory was the control centre for the battle of Britain and is therefore a solemn shrine to the courage and valour of the RAF. Air Vice-Marshal Bill Wratten follows a long line of extremely talented senior Air Force officers. The current chief of the air staff also commanded Bentley Priory. Bill Wratten is young and extremely talented and he will be annoyed that I am making these remarks tonight, but I must make them. He was in charge of the forces in the Gulf and they did a superb and wonderful job.
I am sure that the MOD evaluations by the experts who know far more about these matters than we do will be able to draw the appropriate lessons from what happened in the Gulf war. Unlike the hon. Member for Leyton, I have no quarrel with the tactics and strategy of the Gulf war. The conflict was a superb vindication of the United States-led coalition. There were whingers and moaners early on, but that is understandable. Some people always have doubts and warfare is a horrendous matter. However, the Gulf conflict paid off triumphantly. We were mightily relieved that our casualties, including the Air Force casualties, were so few. Each of those casualties was a sad bereavement for the family and friends concerned and for the nation. But, mercifully, there were very few casualties and we thank the Almighty and our commanders for that result.
Once a conflict is over it is perfectly legitimate for people to ask questions about it and seek more information. The media were very controlled during the conflict, presumably because the United States, after its bitter lessons in Vietnam, was determined to exercise such control. That policy was successful, but it means that the information to hand after the conflict is very limited.
Almost my only doubts about the conflict stem from the incidents that occurred towards the end of the war when the Iraqi forces were retreating from Kuwait. There may be answers about that in future. So far as one can tell, senior British officers were aghast at what they saw when they arrived at the scene. In due course, the Americans or others will provide more information about it. Surely, once the tactics and the strategies have succeeded, there is no need for overkill or the sort of things that may have happened in the Gulf.
I say "may" because I do not want to be unjust. It is easy for armchair experts and observers to pass judgment without having any direct experience, and I am conscious of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is nodding; he is obviously concerned with what I am saying. He has great experience of the Royal Air Force. I reassure him that it is all right to have these thoughts; there is no danger to our troops once the conflict
490
has ended. While the conflict continued, it was different—there had to be national solidarity. I am sure that everyone understands that.
It is legitimate to raise questions after the conflict is ended, not least on behalf of the hapless Iraqi soldiers and civilians who were the main victims of Saddam Hussein—an evil dictator who used those people as malleable pawns in his demonic plans. Unhappily, he has survived. I presume that there will be more information on that in due course. In such a controlled dictatorship, it is difficult to know exactly what is happening and what people feel about someone who has apparently eliminated so many of his opponents.
There are bound to be questions, and there is no need for anyone to be apologetic about that. It is possible that thousands of soldiers were killed unnecessarily. Our understanding is that the Americans, at the highest level in the Pentagon, had to intervene and stop the killing because it was getting out of hand.
A major lesson that we have learnt is that, were such a conflict to occur again—we hope that it will not—the United Nations would have to be more co-ordinated. It must be fully in control of what is happening, except for the military activities that come under the control of military commanders and their command headquarters in the relevant countries. The war was not about the intrinsic survival of the United States, Britain or any other allied country. There were some 400 million people ranged against a nation of 17 million. What the Iraqi dictator did to his hapless and innocent conscripted soldiers is a tragedy both in middle eastern and world history. We must maintain a balanced appraisal, because we all wish to avoid war if we can.
The EFA programme has already been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Minister has reassured the House about its progress. It is already a successful incipient project which, as my right hon. Friend said, is close to its first prototype early next year. That will be the precursor to the production stage. It is essential that we think beyond the Tornado to the next generation of aircraft. As I said previously, it is a great pity that the French did not join the project. I presume that it is now too late for them to do so. I think that they made a mistake. There is an overriding priority for all European countries to get together on new generations of equipment to ensure that the RAF, which has done so well, is properly equipped for the future. We must ensure that the RAF's talented people and its new recruits fly with the best equipment that we can provide. We can no longer provide that equipment from our resources because we are a small country, so we must get together with other countries.
I was a humble ministerial assistant in the Ministry of Defence in the 1970s when the Tornado—the multi-role combat aircraft—was first promulgated. There has been a vindication of the success of a Europeanwide multipurpose aircraft. I vividly remember that when it first came off the drawing board all the newspapers said that it was an absurd notion—an impossible project that could never come to fruition because of all the bureaucracy in the various countries. The Tornado has vindicated those who had faith in it. It performed superbly in the Gulf theatre and elsewhere.
Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for calling me early in the debate. I have pleasure, satisfaction

491
and pride in paying tribute to the Royal Air Force for what it has done for this country, not only recently but over many years.
7.24 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is one of the most Euro-minded Members in this House. I was interested in what he said about the defence factor within Europe, the fact that the Western European Union has now been given a new impetus, and the fact that it is important that we remember that NATO still provides the basis for the defence of the west and our European partners within it. As the European Community enlarges, if the countries that successfully apply to join it are not already members of NATO, I am sure that they will be welcome to join if they wish to do so.
Like my hon. Friend, I had difficulty in finding anything good in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). However, I always take great pains to find common ground. Searching almost in vain, I managed to find some comments with which I wholeheartedly agreed. He said that we needed to be very careful about to whom we sold arms. He spoke of the high technology of the weapons deployed in the Gulf, and said that we should be careful not to find ourselves in a hi-tech arms race. We have successfully avoided a nuclear arms race. It is good that the hon. Gentleman and I can find some common ground.
I am sure that we would also agree with the hon. Gentleman that war is bad. His pacifist credentials are well displayed. His statistics on the Gulf war were interesting. He mentioned the 100,000 tonnes of bombs that were dropped, and said that that was more than were dropped in Vietnam. The fact is that the allies won the Gulf war, but the Americans lost the Vietnam war. We had the pay-off of victory, with a minimum of allied casualties.
I could not help but contrast the hon. Gentleman's speech with that of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). The difference between them raised a question about the real thrust of the defence debate within the Labour party. Although it appears that the Labour party has turned about on its defence policy, a sizeable rump within the party still takes a different view. In the run-up to a general election, the electorate would be wise to ask just to what degree the tail still wags the dog. There is no doubt that CND is still alive and well, and the hon. Member for Leyton is a prominent member. We should not simply accept that the Labour party has changed its spots. I am sure that the electorate will give that careful thought before the next election.
I could not but help also contrasting the hon. Gentleman's speech with that of the hon. Member for Woolwich (M r. Cartwright). His speech could easily have been made from the Conservative Benches, so there is no reason why he and his two colleagues in the SDP—all that is left of the parliamentary party—should not join us. They would be welcome. I could then refer to the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend, which I should be pleased to do. There is certainly plenty of room on our Benches tonight.
All hon. Members have joined in paying the warmest tribute to the Royal Air Force for its dramatically successful role in the recent Gulf conflict. I have heard
492
many hon. Members, especially the members of the Select Committee on Defence, say tonight they they visited the Gulf twice during the war. That may well be the case, but, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and four other parliamentary colleagues, I was there first, and there must be something in that. We met many of the air and ground crews who were later so successfully engaged in the war against Saddam Hussein. I use those words because it was Saddam Hussein we were fighting rather than the Iraqi people. There is no doubt that the heroism, dedication to duty and skill of our Royal Air Force personnel are second to none.
Mr. Dykes: Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that, as on previous occasions, Air Vice-Marshal Wratten said with great emphasis on Saturday night that the letters and messages from home were of enormous help to the air and ground crews? Those letters included messages from schoolchildren and even from politicians. I could say that letters from politicians are rare, but I would not really mean it. In their initial long wait and then in the shorter waits between sorties and missions, it was extremely moving for the crews to be inundated with messages, which they found of great comfort, from the British people.
Mr. Colvin: I am glad to hear that. My hon. Friend's intervention has reminded me that, when my hon. Friends and I arrived in the Gulf, we were struck by the fact that the main concern of the RAF personnel and the civilian aerospace operatives in Saudi Arabia was what their friends and families back home thought about the situation in the Gulf. There is no doubt that some of the alarmist reports in the newspapers and on television and radio caused anxiety not only to people here, but to those deployed in the Gulf, who felt that the people back home were getting the wrong impression about the dangers in which they were living and working.
I draw the Minister's attention to the need to win the propaganda war, especially in the run-up to a conflict. My hon. Friends and I who visited the Gulf noted the marked contrast between the way in which the United Kingdom's forces handled the media in terms of press and information releases and the way in which the Americans did the same thing. When we returned home, one of the first things that we did was to impress upon the Ministry of Defence the need to improve its press and information services so that the right messages would get through not only to the world's press but to our own press, who were present in the Gulf in great numbers waiting for something to happen.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred earlier to the speed and efficiency of the deployment to the Gulf of our aircraft and airmen in August and September of 1990 and later. A great tribute for the way in which that was managed so successfully must be paid to the British personnel there, especially the 3,500 British Aerospace personnel who were already in the Gulf taking part in the massive Al Yamamah contract, which is the biggest ever single export order for the United Kingdom for the supply of defence hardware to the Saudi Arabians, and which also involves the construction of an air base and, among other things, a town for 25,000 people.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan praised the Saudi Arabian air crews. Having had the opportunity to meet air crews from the Royal Saudi air force, I thoroughly endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments. I well recall our debates

493
in the early 1980s, both inside and outside the House, about the future of the JP233 bomb, which is used for knocking out enemy runways. There was much debate about whether that project should proceed and, like everyone else, I am pleased that it did.
The deployment of that bomb calls for exceptional bravery on the part not only of the pilots—there have been many tributes this evening to the bravery of our pilots but also from men who sometimes do not get the praise that they deserve. I refer to the weapons systems officers, also known as WESOs, who do not fly the aircraft but who sit behind the pilots and have the job of making sure that the systems work. When I was at the Riyadh training centre of the Royal Saudi air force, I suggested that the WESO is as important today as the pilot. It is often felt that those officers are second-class citizens, but that is far from being the case, and we must pay tribute to their work in the Gulf conflict.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre would be the first to agree that, if the JP233 bomb had been available during the Falklands operation, his task as a Vulcan pilot, taking out the Falklands airport runway, would have been a great deal easier.
To win a war, one must have air superiority and air supremacy. The Gulf conflict once again proved the truth of that and demonstrated the need to be one step ahead technically. I join those who have already called for the possible development of a stand-off capability from the JP233 bomb. We saw with amazement some of the feats of the Tomahawk cruise missile. If the JP233 bomb could be given the same flexibility, through wings, an engine and a guidance system, that would be greatly welcomed by all the pilots and WESOs who delivered it so successfully during the Gulf campaign.
Another aspect of the Gulf war was high mobility, which is an important principle of war. When we were in Saudi Arabia, we saw the massive number of helicopters that were already being deployed by the United States of America, including many Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters. I hope that, when they withdraw their forces from the Gulf, the Americans will not leave that hardware behind, thereby damaging the prospects of stage II of the Al Yamamah project, which includes the supply of 88 Black Hawk helicopters to the Royal Saudi air force. Those helicopters are to be assembled by Westland. The total order is worth about £1 billion, it is important business for Britain and for Westland. I am told that 20 such helicopters are wanted urgently.
Any debate on the Royal Air Force tends to concentrate on fixed-wing aircraft and their weapons, and this evening's debate has been no exception. However, helicopters are also important to the Royal Air Force although it has only eight Chinook helicopters for support purposes, such as for transporting men and materials around the battlefield and elsewhere. Those helicopters are now being successfully deployed in northern Iraq and Turkey, bringing relief to the Kurds.
The defence White Paper states that our Chinooks are being updated to improve their reliability—that is good news—and to extend their life well into the next century. I was sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State did not say anything about helicopters earlier. No doubt he is leaving his views on the subject until his reply.
494
I want to make a few remarks about, first, the supply of the utility EH101 helicopter to the Royal Air Force and, secondly search and rescue operations, about which other hon. Members have spoken and for which helicopters are used by the Royal Air Force.
Four years ago, in April 1987, the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), announced that the Ministry of Defence would place an order for 25 utility EH101 helicopters, which were being developed jointly by Westland and Agusta of Italy. Westland has completed phase 1 of a project definition study. It was completed in early 1990. It was proposed to build variants of the basic utility version.
Phase 2 of the study aims to provide more details of the selected variant to enable the project to go to the full development stage. Alas, the delays already experienced mean that the first aircraft is most unlikely to enter service with the RAF until 1998. That is much later than the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr suggested. He referred to delivery in the early 1990s. It almost seems as if "Options for Change" is being used as a further reason for delaying the programme, which I regret.
The order for 25 utility EH 101 s, to be used in the support role, gives the aircraft an important endorsement by the Royal Air Force and helps to spread the cost of developing the technically more sophisticated versions of the EH101 for the Navy and the Army and, of course, developing the aircraft for civil use, where it has considerable potential. The EH101 could not only become the standard British helicopter for all the services but, through Westland's business link with Sikorsky, could find a profitable market in the United States. The aircraft certainly fits neatly into Sikorsky's product range.
I do not wish to give the impression that the EH101 is a drawing board aircraft. Nine pre-production aircraft have flown in Britain and Italy; 1,000 flying hours and 1,000 separate missions have been completed. The aircraft has landed at sea on frigates. A utility version with a rear landing ramp is flying in Italy, and British troop trials show that 30 combat-equipped soldiers with their support weapons can load in two minutes, which is much quicker than I was ever able to load my platoon into three-ton trucks when I was in the Army.
The EH101 has a top speed of 167 knots, or 193 miles per hour, at 12,000 ft. It can fly backwards and sideways at 50 knots. The test pilots who have flown the aircraft say that it is very free of vibration. Those of us who have flown a lot in helicopters know that vibration is a major problem. When my right hon. Friend the Minister replies, I should like him to tell us when the order will be placed for those 25 utility helicopters.
My right hon. Friend the Minister's review "Options for Change" raises another interesting question. For many years, there has been a debate about who should fly the Army around the battlefield and on other journeys. At present, the Royal Air Force has the job of flying our Chinook helicopters. I would argue that that role should be performed by the Army Air Corps. There have been arguments for and against that. I remind the House that the Army Air Corps is responsible only for flying the Army's helicopters. The RAF flies the Chinooks. The Royal Corps of Transport is responsible for handling the transport of the Army by road, rail and sea. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary sails from the Royal Corps of Transport

495
headquarters at Marchwood in my constituency. I have not heard the suggestion before, but under "Options for Change", my right hon. Friend the Minister might like to consider amalgamating the Royal Corps of Transport and the Royal Army Air Corps and giving them the role of flying the Chinooks and the EH101 utility version helicopters that I hope will be ordered.
Mr. Bill Walker: Before my hon. Friend goes too far down that road, will he remember that one of the reasons why the Royal Air Force is able to have pilots available for all the different roles and activities that it performs is that, for example, if a fast jet pilot injures his back he can be transferred to helicopters? There would be problems in transferring light blue to khaki.
Mr. Colvin: I hear my hon. Friend's remarks. If a debate ensues about who should fly the support helicopters, no doubt my hon. Friend will take art active part in it. His point is a valid one.
Admittedly, we live in a changing world, but some trends are clear, even in these uncertain times. One trend that is crystal clear is the requirement for our armed forces to be more mobile. In the main, helicopters—both attack and logistic versions—will give us that mobility. Other countries have no difficulty in recognising that and acting accordingly. The French, Germans and Italians have co-ordinated their efforts, and their manufacturers have a clear idea of their military markets in terms of types and numbers of helicopters for the next 20 years. It is about time that we too made progress on that front.
Our armed forces search and rescue helicopter teams are the envy of the world. In 1989 SAR was called out 1,903 times and rescued 1,275 people in demanding and dangerous situations. Merchant seamen, fishermen and hill climbers were rescued, usually in filthy weather. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), whom I see here in the Chamber, drew attention to the great value of the service. I seem to recall that, during the Lockerbie disaster, SAR performed an important mission. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries nodding. SAR has an important role to play. However, it is maintained primarily for the military role, which is why I believe that the Royal Air Force should retain responsibility for it.
Three years ago a review carried out by the Ministry of Defence showed that there was a need for search and rescue teams to be combat effective. That review concluded that it was a job for the Royal Air Force. I hope that "Options for Change" will not be used as another excuse for prevarication on the subject. I know that the Ministry of Defence has received an unsolicited contractorisation bid from a civilian helicopter firm. I believe that it is Bristow.
Mr. Bill Walker: That is right.
Mr. Colvin: Indeed, it is Bristow. The company is interested in taking on the work performed by at least parts of the military SAR service. Bristow is a splendid firm, I have a high regard for the professional way in which it conducts its operations, especially serving in the North sea. I do not belittle it in any way. However, if the contract went to a civilian firm, it would almost certainly use foreign-built helicopters. If the contract remained in the capable hands of the Royal Air Force, the Ministry of Defence could proceed with replacement of the obsolete,
496
but much-loved, Wessex helicopters with 10 Sea King helicopters from Westland. Another valid commercial reason for replacement with Sea Kings is that, if a decision is not made soon, the Sea King production line may have to close. Therefore, the option of procuring that excellent SAR helicopter would no longer exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) drew attention to the importance of preserving our defence industrial base, and that must also apply to helicopters.
Many hon. Members will join me in expressing pleasure at the fact that the Westland-Sikorsky solution to Westland's problems has been a great success. I believe that even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, were he in his place, would probably now agree that going American was better than going European, and Westland's results for last year prove my point.
Sir Leslie Fletcher, chairman of the Westland group, told his shareholders at the annual general meeting in February that orders were up 30 per cent., that profit before tax was up 27 per cent., that earnings per share were up 16 per cent., that gearing was less than 18 per cent., and better than last year and that civil orders' intake was about 40 per cent., with total margins up in all divisions. That has been a real success story. I should like to see the company get the orders to which I referred, to help Westland help the RAF to defend Britain and our allies and our joint interests all over the world.
7.50 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: It is always a pleasure to take part in the annual debate on the Royal Air Force, and this year we are anxious to express the nation's gratitude for the great professionalism, courage and skill shown by all ranks during Operation Granby in the Gulf.
It should be recorded in a debate such as this that the headquarters for the operation was Strike Command headquarters at High Wycombe and that Air Chief Marshal Sir Paddy Hine was the commander in chief of the overall operation. It was, of course, very much a joint operation and credit is due to all those in the command structure as well as to those in the front line. Credit is also due to those who prepared for the unforeseen—for the event that nobody could foretell in detail—so that there was in existence a command structure that was able to adapt itself to the speedily arising crisis thousands of miles away.
For me, the whole of the crisis—the campaign and the build-up to it—was particularly poignant, because I was taking part at the time in the parliamentary liaison scheme, I was thus in regular contact with the young men and women who were called on to respond to the challenge when it came, and they responded in a way of which we can be proud. That came as no surprise to me, after what I had seen of them in their normal operational life.
It was also poignant for me that one of the air crew who was shot down and captured, and who was then paraded on television in breach of the Geneva convention, was one of my constituents. He has been referred to as a weapons system officer, but I still call him a navigator. I believe that I am technically correct, and when I saw that fine young man recently, he was wearing a navigator's uniform.
Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will know that, in the RAF, navigators frequently drop bombs.
Mr. Trotter: My hon. Friend speaks on these issues with great personal knowledge.
I pay tribute to the courage and steadfastness of the parents of young Adrian Nichol, who went through a terrible ordeal, not least because of the dreadful rumours that kept coming out of Iraq and were picked up by the media. Throughout that difficult time, they showed great bravery and determination and utter support for what the Allies were having to do in the Gulf.
The campaign, Operation Granby, was a striking demonstration of the flexibility and effectiveness of air power. An extraordinary feature of the campaign was the way in which, night after night, we were able to see on television in our homes the unfolding of the air war. Nobody can be unaware of the way in which air power contributed dramatically to the allied victory.
The speed of the initial response was truly impressive. Towards the end of the operation, I visited Lossiemouth, where I was particularly struck by the way in which, halfway through the air fighting, the Buccaneer force responded to the call. They had originally volunteered to be in on the action, but it was thought that the Tornados, with the Jaguars, would be able to manage. It was then found that the skills of the Buccaneers—skills that they have honed to a fine art in attacks on shipping, pinpointing such small targets—with their laser-designating system, gave them a part to play in the accurate bombing of targets in the Gulf.
I was impressed, although not surprised, to hear of the way in which, within 48 hours of being asked to get their rather old aircraft to the war, they were off on the nine-and-a-half-hour flight to the Gulf. Those who are not experienced in flying in the back seats of high-performance aircraft, for whom an hour and a half is an exhilarating experience, will wonder how anybody could manage a flight lasting nine or more hours. When the challenge came, they showed their strength and capability.
Reference has been made to the transport force, which operates worldwide in peace time. During Operation Granby, it proved to be the largest air transport operation in the history of the RAF. When I say that to move one squadron of fighters can require up to 90 loads in transport aircraft, the scale and magnitude of what had to be undertaken becomes apparent.
Reference has been made to the role played by the Nimrods. I understand that, during the campaign, they made 5,000 challenges to shipping in the Gulf—an impressive performance. During my visits to the service, I was pleased to meet units of the Auxiliary Air Force, some of whom, as has been said, took part as units and as individuals in the Gulf.
I greatly commend to the House the parliamentary liaison scheme. I was able to see the front line—sadly, not in the Gulf, but in this country on exercise—and to take part in sorties, when the capabilities and skill of the crews and the speed of their reaction were brought home to me. On my flights, I was made very aware of their professionalism and high standard of training. My observations left me in no doubt that there must be constant practice in low-level flying to maintain the standards that are needed.
The experiences that I enjoyed varied between the thrill of flying on the ranges at low level over the sea in a Tornado to flying in a Shackleton. I had last flown in the latter in 1958, and it did not seem to have changed much. I dare say that the sons of the crews who flew me in 1958
498
were flying me on the most recent occasion. That could hardly have been so for the wing commander of the squadron, because I recognised him as an old friend who had been flying for most of the last 30 years, having started as a very young man.
In terms of size, I flew in aircraft varying from the Hercules to the tiny Bulldogs of the Northumbria university air squadron. I was able to visit all three commands; Strike and Support Commands in the United Kingdom and RAF Germany. I enjoyed a particularly thrilling take-off in a Harrier from a German wood, when it seemed to me that the wing tips were touching the trees on either side. I had my hands on the ejection lever ready instantly to obey the command to get out, without asking questions if anything went wrong. The group captain who had earlier been escorting me was blown over by the efflux from the jets as we passed ear him, so close were we to the trees.
I was struck by the way in which we could move 1,000 or 1,500 men and 30 or more aircraft and deposit them literally in a field, along with hundreds of lorries and all the stores that go with a wing of aircraft. It was all done smoothly in difficult surroundings. It is such flexibility, training and superb professionalism that enable the service to respond to the unexpected.
I visited a training unit in which I had served as a young man many years ago. When I expressed the wish to see some of the places of which I had happy memories, the commanding officer told me that I would find it very different, as all the old buildings had been pulled down, and mostly that was true. They had been replaced by much more modern buildings than the ones that I remembered but the spirit of the service had not changed. It was as high and fine as I remembered from all those years ago. I made it my business to ask to meet men and women of all ranks. One must be careful because one otherwise might spend most of one's time with the wing commanders. I wanted to speak not only to the air crews but also to those who support them and constitute the training and administrative structure behind them. I also asked to meet the wives, because we should not underestimate the importance of family life in today's modern service.
In south Wales, I visited the RAF factory at St. Athan. I was particularly impressed by the technical skills displayed and the team effort of the civilian and service personnel, which is such a feature of the service today.
It is appropriate tonight to thank a large number of people, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is the brain behind the concept of the parliamentary liaison scheme. I should also like to thank Mr. Speaker for his important role in the scheme, and Ministers, their officers and the air staff who made the scheme possible. I also thank my friendly hosts at the various stations and the enthusiastic staff at the three commands.
Above all, however, I should like to thank the men and women who make it all possible. They discussed with me their capabilities and achievements, together with the challenges before them, and their natural concerns about the future. The importance of maintaining the quality of service life is the main message that I would bring back from my experiences.
A feature that now emerges prominently is the new management strategy. It is not only in the health service that we are seeing efforts to bring about a more responsive budgeting process. Local financial management is now

499
being introduced throughout the services. In general, I found enthusiasm for it, although there was some cynicism about whether the financial savings would be left at the unit concerned, rather than taken away higher up the chain or indeed taken away from the service altogether. It is important that flexibility and savings come from this praiseworthy change in financial control, in which decisions are taken at the bottom, and that there should be local advantages from those changes. I am sure that that is the intention and we must see that it is the way in which it works out in practice.
Lessons will be learnt from the Gulf war, many of them technical. Some may take time to learn but others are more obvious. One such lesson is the importance of smart weapons, which are expensive but which work. They have improved dramatically and we shall need to continue to invest in that direction. Other hon. Members have referred to various individual weapons. I have always felt that stealth aircraft will be a feature in the future of combat aircraft.
I was impressed by the role of the F117 in the Gulf campaign. I understand that it was the only aircraft to bomb Baghdad. Although there were only 40 of them in the Gulf, a high percentage of the most difficult targets were taken out by them. It has been suggested that the Royal Air Force should invest in a small number of those aircraft. That is not a stupid suggestion.
Clearly, our main aircraft for the future will be the European fighter aircraft. I cannot help commenting on the thought that there will not be a navigator or weapons system officer in the back of such aircraft. Despite all the technology in such aircraft, there will be a heavy burden on the individual, who must both pilot it and operate the attack system. We may well need a small number of aircraft with more stealth elements than can be built into the EFA, but that is a technical matter that can be considered in the future.
The flexibility of air power was superbly demonstrated in the Gulf conflict. There will certainly continue to be threats that we cannot now imagine. They will arrive suddenly and will require a capability and speed of response from the Air Force in the future as they have in the past. We must maintain our military capability, and the standard of personnel and equipment. Whatever the outcome of the "Options for Change" review, we must ensure that we maintain the quality of life of those who serve in the air force, as well as in the Army and Navy.
Our motto must be "smaller but better". The reduction of some nine fast jet squadrons, which has been announced, is generally accepted within the service as something that is bound to happen with the change in the balance between east and west and the collapse of the Warsaw pact. We must under "Options for Change" take the opportunity to end the undermanning and overstretch that exists in some parts of the service.
We also need a critical mass. I do not say that the reduction in prospect would overload that, but we are nearing it with the level of reductions suggested. Unless we have a critical mass, we cannot generate adequate forces to respond to the sudden challenge.
May I return to the question of the quality of life? These days, wives are very important in regular service life. "Wife power" kept coming through as an important factor in the morale and life of the stations. Nowadays, wives want their family to own their own homes. They want a stable
500
life, but service life is inevitably unstable. They want careers of their own, which is not easy when their husbands are inevitably posted.
The person concerned is usually a wife, but the argument applies both ways to spouses these days. I was struck by the extent to which the service tried hard to be helpful, particularly when both husband and wife were in the Air Force. It went to great lengths to secure postings at the same base or at bases in close proximity.
Whenever possible, I met the wives and sought their views. I found that the Air Force had responded positively to the challenge. An organisation entitled HIVE—Help Information and Voluntary Exchange—has introduced successful initiatives among the families in the units. A factor of RAF life is that postings are made individually, unlike the Army, where units are usually moved as a whole and people thus move around together. The same happens with ships' companies in the Royal Navy. From a family point of view, that means that more support is often needed for Royal Air Force families than for those of the Army or Navy.
Morale cannot be quantified, but it is clearly vital. It has never been higher than at present in the air force. We must ensure that it stays that way. In the Gulf, the quality of the service was splendidly demonstrated, and we must retain that quality in the future. It is not just important; it is essential. It does not matter how good technical equipment is if morale is not high. Unless people are well trained and motivated, we shall not achieve the required standards. There is no doubt that some departments are overstretched. Many units or parts of units work way below established strength. Too often, the establishment does not allow adequately for leave or sickness or for guard duty, which is an increasing feature of today's service, or for frequent absence on detachment, whether to the Falkland islands, Belize or now, presumably, to the Gulf.
Under the "Options for Change" review, we should look carefully into the question of manning and must return to a realistic establishment and see that it is filled. One officer described it to me as the need for a service dividend as well as a peace dividend.
As for guard duties, I welcome the recent news that a civilian guard force was to be created. I believe that it should have an expanded role. I did not meet one person who, when serving on guard duty, complained about having to do it. Everyone recognised the need for it but, from time to time, they complained that the duty came round too often; some said that they had not joined the Royal Air Force to spend considerable periods on guard.
We should seek to expand the civilianisation of guard duties. I cannot help wondering whether there should not also be a greater role for auxiliaries, who are at present forbidden to carry weapons in peacetime under the law. I think that the law needs to be revised. The auxiliaries are keen and the Defence Forces and perhaps, in some cases, part of the Territorial Army could well be happy to undertake the role. We must address that issue in the period ahead.
Undoubtedly, there are some difficult judgments to be made and some nice balances to be struck. At times, we have to spend to save. We all know that it is not easy to find the money to put down now to make future savings and promote efficiency in the future. However, if we find the money for new equipment and aircraft, we can save on spares. Old aircraft are expensive in terms of spares and

501
the manpower needed to keep them flying—the Phantom is an example. The removal of the Phantom from the front line will be cost-effective; large savings will come from it.
There is an argument for having fewer and larger bases, and we could save funds by concentrating activity. However, money has to be put down in the first place to fund that concentration process. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will hardly be surprised to hear that I believe that there are good arguments for concentrating more on bases in the northern half of the country. It is easier to recruit civilians there than in the south, especially the south-east. It is easier for service personnel to afford houses in the north, where the cost of living tends to be lower and there is a higher satisfaction rate among the service community.
Above all, we must spend on the quality of life, which is not just essential for a happy and efficient service, but also cost-effective. If we do not do that, people will not stay long enough in the service, which is disruptive, removes skills and makes it costly to train replacements. Great opportunities are represented by the decisions that have to be taken under "Options for Change". I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will plan wisely as they make major decisions in the immediate future for the benefit of the service.
It has been a great privilege and pleasure to take part in the parliamentary liaison scheme. I believe that the House, as whole and certainly the individuals concerned benefit from that initiative and so does the service. I thoroughly commend it as an enjoyable and very worthwhile experience to any colleagues who are considering applying to take part.
8.13 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome this opportunity to speak in the Air Force debate. The House knows of my interest in such matters. I am astonished that, this late in the debate, no one has mentioned that this year is the 50th anniversary of the Air Training Corps, which is totally funded by the Air Force vote and budget. Many of the service personnel serving in the Gulf were ex-ATC cadets—that was certainly true of the RAF contingent. I welcome this opportunity to put that on record.
May I say to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that hon. Members have witnessed and, I dare say, welcomed the Labour party's robust defence policy in support of the Gulf operations. The hon. Member for Clackmannan has, on a number of occasions—this evening was no exception—had to take some of his colleagues to task for not conforming to Labour party policy. We recognise and applaud that.
However, there are some weaknesses, not only in the position of the hon. Member for Clackmannan, but in the Labour party's defence policy. As I understand it, the hon. Member chastised Ministers because they would not order the necessary equipment for the Royal Air Force, but he fails to persuade his Labour colleagues to agree a Labour defence policy that would require increased defence expenditure, which is what his remarks call for. Are we to believe that the voice of the Labour party is that of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)? I hope not—I hope that it is the voice of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and, if so, that he can persuade his colleagues to call for more defence expenditure.
502
Recent "hot" war experience in the Gulf and a recognition of the Soviet Union's military capability, linked to possible political change, have provided a United Kingdom and NATO scenario that is substantially different from that which existed when "Options for Change" was introduced. The reunification of Germany and the less than enthusiastic support of our European Community partners for military action in the Gulf have also produced a dramatic reappraisal of who we can depend on in difficult political and military circumstances.
In the Gulf, air supremacy and control of the sea lanes, coupled with the use of new technology and smart weapons, made the war different from any previous war involving western forces and western technology. Air supremacy and superiority was important, and command of the skies was achieved by the United Nations air force at an early stage in the war.
However—it was on this subject that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and I had our earlier exchange—the question that everyone must ask is: why did not the Iraqi air force fight? The Iraqi air force had the equipment, numbers and, obviously, the ability. One could also ask why, with its surface-to-air missiles, the air force switched on its radar only to detect incoming aircraft and, having done so, promptly switched it off when the missile had been popped off. That meant that the missiles were flying blind and did not hit many targets. The answer is that the Iraqis did not have the stomach for war. It is not unrealistic to say that, because the military had just ended a relatively recent war of great attrition resembling the first world war. Therefore, it would have been surprising in any circumstances if the military had been ready to fight another battle as intensive as the one that it faced.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does not my hon. Friend think it possible that the Iraqi leadership comprehended that the allied war aim was strictly limited to the liberation of Kuwait, and that the allies would not go so far as to remove Saddam Hussein or the revolutionary command council from power? Therefore, it was important to retain a cadre of first-rate aeroplanes to rebuild the air force as an important component of military power for the peace after the war.
Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I was just about to move on to that point and suggest that the situation was probably a repeat of Nasser, with Saddam Hussein seeing himself coming out of the war as the unchallenged leader of the Arab world.
I am now liable, in view of what was said earlier, to be chastised by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, but I shall make some comments about the war which are important. Obviously, the airfields, radar, anti-aircraft defences, communications and command and control installations were the prime targets. They were heavily attacked and made largely inoperative by precision bombing and cruise missile strikes. In-flight refuelling and airborne early warning radar, used in conjunction with radar jamming, allowed the coalition aircraft to operate and strike targets throughout Iraq and Kuwait. We saw stealth technology for the first time, working through the F117.
The use of smart weapons at safe operational altitudes during day and night sorties to seek out and destroy well protected, hardened concrete targets and bridges provided a clear sign of the military advantage in the availability

503
and use of such weapons. I hope that we shall never forget that. It was those effective weapons that made it all possible.
Air superiority aircraft deployed by the United States Air Force clearly demonstrated the necessity of the availability of such aircraft in battlefield conditions. Ministers have recognised that, as shown by their support for EFA. I also suggest that we must continue to upgrade the Tornado F3. It is not a substitute for the agile EFA in battlefield conditions, but it has a complementary role for the future.
The high risks involved in accurately delivering the RAF's runway multi-purpose munitions must advance the case for stand-off weapons, which should be fitted at an early stage to the GR1 strike aircraft, which could also be adapted to take certain elements of stealth technology.
I believe, controversially perhaps, that the low-flying tactics worked. Someone had to say that. I very much doubt whether we could have operated at medium level from day one in the Gulf war—the risks to our pilots and crews would have been enormous—if the runways had not been taken out in the first few hours. Taking out the runways and radar made a massive contribution and made possible the change in tactics. Our flexibility made us successful. If we had not been able to fly low and fast in the early hours of the war, its result might have been different. A lot of nonsense is talked—we heard some this evening from the hon. Member for Leyton—about low-level tactics.
The Iraqi tactic of switching on radar only for surface-to-air missiles to locate their targets and then to switch it off again probably accounted for the low number of coalition aircraft lost. Anyone who has studied the Iraqis' equipment, and its quantity, would have expected greater losses among our aircraft. The tactic probably accounts also for some of the damage to civilian targets from falling missiles.
I wish to discuss the vulnerability of mechanised infantry and tanks when operated without air cover. That vulnerability was highlighted in the war and it must put a large question mark against the future use of great numbers of heavy tanks. Instead, helicopters and fixed-wing and anti-armour aircraft must be recognised by the MOD as a better use of scarce military funds. It was the lengthy air campaign that made the short land battle possible. The low number of casualties sustained by coalition ground forces and the few real land engagements between the two sides can be attributed to the effective and detailed planning by coalition commanders, coupled with the clever execution and flexibility of our plans—not to mention the massive air superiority of the coalition forces.
The effective anti-missile defences and the success of the Patriot system against Scud missiles constitute one of the practical lessons to emerge from the Gulf war which must call for a reappraisal of attitudes to what is known as star wars technology.
Another lesson must he the danger posed by missile systems that can deliver nuclear, chemical or biological warheads across neutral territory. The Scud missile attacks against Israel could have carried such warheads. Today, more and more nations are acquiring ballistic and cruise technology, and some of them may be tempted to use those weapons against countries that do not possess anti-missile systems. Such cases will involve help from other countries.
The use of Scud missiles against urban, civilian targets clearly showed that unconventional warheads fitted to
504
such missiles could become terror weapons in the hands of evil dictators. The proliferation of ballistic missiles, the weapon of choice in the third world, must make that scenario a real possibility. Civilian space programmes have become the development area for missile technology, and Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Japan, China, Pakistan, South Africa and South Korea are all working on space rockets. Consequently, control of ballistic missiles will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible——
Mr. O'Neill: I do not wish to enter into a long argument with the hon. Gentleman, but he should know that Brazil and Argentina recently signed an agreement that will prevent them from proceeding with the use of ballistic missile technology for offensive purposes. His list is slightly out of date, therefore.
Mr. Walker: That is the very point that I want to make. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make such agreements work and stick. As more countries acquire the technology, the few that have signed may find themselves the victims of threats of attacks.That will lead to instability.
I am not one of this world's optimists. My experience in the short time that I have lived is that many people fail to honour the agreements that they have signed. Modern aircraft navigation aids and the relative simplicity of cruise-type missile technology will make the production of terror weapons with only a crude target-finding capability fairly simple. As a result, the missile technology control regime may now be obsolete. Smart weapons of the kind used in the Gulf will be in great demand, and oil-rich friendly states will expect to be able to buy the latest products from western manufacturers. In today's circumstances, such activity can be effectively controlled only by deploying western military personnel and hardware—and charging for them. Such countries were prepared to pay in the Gulf war, and they may also be prepared to pay for long-term stability if we provide it.
Anti-missile weapons systems have been seen to work and must now be a top priority for future defence spending. We should also remember that anti-aircraft guns can still destroy modern expensive jet aircraft; and stealth technology was seen in the Gulf to be effective.
What I say next may also be controversial: only Britain and the United States can be depended upon when the chips are down, and only the French in Europe can be expected to provide military support once the British and the Americans are committed. "Options for Change" should be replaced by "Options for Defence Enhancement". The Treasury should be made to accept the lessons of the Gulf and to recognise the real threat that the Soviet military and political machine represents. It must therefore sanction increased spending, since it is always less expensive to deter than to fight wars.
Orders must be placed urgently for an EFA-type aircraft, for helicopters for anti-tank and rapid deployment roles, and for Sea Kings to replace the search-and-rescue Wessex. We should also consider anti-missile defence systems and, if necessary, collaborate to obtain them. Stand-off smart weapons for the Tornado GR1 and stealth technology should be top of our requirement lists. All regular units in the RAF should in future require a reserve commitment until retirement age—anyone who joins up, for however short a time, should

505
be committed to his duties in future. That happens in the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) clearly showed in his constructive speech how we can properly make use of reserves. The turnout of auxiliaries and reserves clearly showed how effective they can be. I congratulate Wing Commander Alex Dickson and his team of reserve officers who volunteered on day one of the conflict and all did their bit.
We must make use of all the equipment purchased for the RAF and the cadets. The Vigilant motor glider would make an excellent communications aircraft because it flies a damn sight faster than communications aircraft that we have used in the past, and it has a better range. We must examine ways to encourage more people to become involved in the reserves.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the United Kingdom, the United States and France can expect future calls for the defence force deployment outside what is looked upon as the natural NATO area. The United States and individual states saw in the Gulf war and in the humanitarian intervention on behalf of the Kurds that we are ready and willing, so we can expect more demands to be made on us.
It is also clear that President Gorbachev and his political allies intend to couple a consumer economy to an authoritarian political system and a command economy in the military industrial sectors. To those leaders, that seems an ideal recipe. Even if the Russia of the future is smaller than the present Russia, it will still be about 90 per cent. of the present Soviet Union, and we could see a return to age-old Russian demands for warm-water ports and expansion and the classic use of external threats to divert attention from problems at home.
I have an interest in training. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us tonight about experience with the Tucano training aircraft, which has now been in use long enough for a proper evaluation. Perhaps he will also tell us about female pilots and air crew who have been trained. When the Government make decisions about the future of the RAF, they should remember that it is easy to replace buildings but that one cannot easily and quickly replace airfields. One can dispose of many of the assets around an airfield, but airfields themselves should not be disposed of lightly.
Before closing any military establishment, the Government should bear in mind the fact that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that the United Kingdom and Great Britain mean something. It should also be borne in mind that the RAF is the British Royal Air Force. Careful thought should be given before deciding to close a base in a given area, such as Wales. RAF Brawdy is more than just a base for the Royal Air Force—it reminds local people that they are part of the United Kingdom. I could also mention Rosyth, but I shall not do so because we are not debating the Navy.
It has been suggested that helicopter operations should be transferred to the Army. I spoke about jet pilots being expensive to train. A pilot with a damaged back, as I have, cannot use an ejector seat because ejection could paralyse him. Such pilots with vast experience can be diverted to other duties and, of course, helicopters come into that.
506
There is another and perhaps more important reason for not transferring helicopters to the Army. The RAF has developed a technical expertise in helicopters which is the envy of the world. To hand such a task to the Army would be like asking it to reinvent the wheel. Anyone who thinks that the Army has the capability to operate helicopters should compare the facilities of the two services.
I welcome local financial management as the right way forward. The RAF has also welcomed it. The modern Royal Air Force has been a professional organisation for a long time. We must not believe the fairy tales alluded to earlier by the hon. Member for Clackmannan, who spoke about battle of Britain pilots. I hosted a lunch in the House of Commons last year for some surviving pilots of that battle, and they are not the sort of people projected in fairy tales. They are like modern RAF pilots and air crew, who are recruited from all walks of socio-economic life in the United Kingdom. They are selected on ability and retained because of their professionalism, because professionalism, ability, skill and courage are the hallmarks of the Royal Air Force. That courage has been demonstrated every time that the RAF has carried out what has been required of it.
The RAF should not be thought of as a Biggles outfit. It is a highly professional organisation staffed by ordinary people and not the sort of characters that one reads about in comic strips. They are the elite of the young people of our country and we are proud of what they have done in recent times.
8.36 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: It is appropriate for this debate on the Royal Air Force to take place so soon after the service that it performed so well in the Gulf. In that conflict, more than 100 RAF aircraft, supported by many thousands of air and ground crew, carried out thousands of sorties that clearly showed the devastating effectiveness and flexibility of modern air power. Air power on its own came close to settling the conflict, proving right the advocates of air power, right back to the 1920s, who said that air power could do that.
Of equal importance is the fact that air superiority was achieved with far fewer casualties than were estimated before the conflict started, when the media said that thousands of people would be killed. Casualties on the Iraqi side were much higher than on our side, but the accuracy of the weapons ensured that there were fewer than would have occurred in any previous conflict.
The Gulf conflict gave many air and ground crews invaluable operational experience that will be of great benefit to them in their careers. It is difficult to get good operational training, and none could be better than that gained from taking part in a proper operation such as that in the Gulf. Such training occurs infrequently and it is therefore vital that lessons are learned from it. Such lessons are useful when making decisions about money, types of aircraft, and equipment as mundane as boots. As we saw after the Falklands conflict, decisions can be reassessed and advances can be made in all areas.
The Gulf war gave us a unique opportunity to test many new weapons systems. Pictures on television and reports in the media showed that laser guidance, whether directed from the ground or from the air, was highly successful in ensuring accurate targeting. The technique of runway denial was less certain and has always been a problem in the Royal Air Force. Despite the popular idea

507
that runways are vulnerable, they are difficult targets for any aircraft weapon. I fully appreciate what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about not yet being able to evaluate specific weapons systems. Such evaluation will have to continue for some time. Nevertheless, it is important that the RAF now looks closely at its tactics for runway denial and seriously considers tactics and weapons systems that do not require strike or attack aircraft to fly directly, at low levels, over heavily defended targets.
I do not want to take away anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the effectiveness of the early attacks. I entirely agree with him. Without the Tornado and its highly specialist weapons system, we would have suffered considerably greater casualties, and we would have come up against the Iraqi air force very soon in the war, possibly with different results. We achieved tactical surprise. We prevented the Iraqi air force from getting airborne in any numbers to oppose us. As a result, many problems were avoided. Somehow, that lesson seems to have been forgotten.
The popular conception is that the Iraqi air force was never a threat. It was a threat. Many hundreds of modern aircraft, piloted by pilots who would no doubt have been brave had they been properly commanded, would have posed a significant threat to the allied war effort in the Gulf. Those early attacks by the stealth aircraft, the Tornados and other allied aircraft, but most specifically the runway denial capabilities of the Tornado, largely got over that problem. When the history of the conflict is written, that will probably be seen as the critical phase. Once that was over, it was relatively easy to predict the conclusion of the conflict, although the time could not have been determined until much later, when the extent of the destruction caused by our weapons systems was evaluated.
In that context, I want to talk about reconnaissance, which has not been mentioned so far. It seems to be the Cinderella of air forces. Different techniques are used. The Americans believe that reconnaissance can take place at the same time as the attack is going in, and that the air crew carrying out the attack can also decide whether they have destroyed the building or airfield that they are attacking. The RAF takes a different view. It believes that, while attack-type reconnaissance is useful, there is a need for special reconnaissance aircraft to go in afterwards to assess professionally the effectiveness of the attack.
The GR1A, the reconnaissance version of the GR1, was rushed into service and sent to the Gulf. It was effective not only in assessing what had taken place but in seeking, through its infra-red and other sensors, the Scud sites which caused so many problems early in the war. Again, I do not think that that aspect of the operation has been fully acknowledged. It shows the importance of the specialist role of reconnaissance, which should remain in the main stream of the tactics of air forces today and in the future. That should be developed further and we should perhaps have more Tornados with that capacity.
Less easy to evaluate was the success of the system on the Tornado F3, not because, as articles in The Daily Telegraph suggest, it was ineffective and did not achieve anything, but simply because the Iraqi air force never got airborne in sufficient numbers and never flew near enough to the Saudi border to pose any threat.
I was interested in the number of modifications that were quickly made to the Foxhunter radar on the F3 for operations in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. I was also interested
508
in the reply that I got on Tuesday during Defence questions about the effectiveness of that radar. The reply made it clear that the radar now exceeded its original specification, but that that did not relate to all the radar. However, there is still concern about the effectiveness of that radar, bearing in mind its huge cost to the taxpayer and the difficulties of its procurement through different contracts.
While I am obviously pleased that the radar is better than it was, it would be useful, in the general assessment of weapons and their effectiveness to be carried out by my right hon. Friend, for him to speak, rather than to weapons systems operators, to some of the pilots and navigators who fly the F3 Tornado in this country. He could hear at first hand their assessment of the stage 1 and stage 2 improvements to the system, in order to find out whether their assessments vary greatly from those of the officials in the Ministry. I am not suggesting for a moment that they might be different, but it is important occasionally for politicians and Ministers to speak to people in the front line to find out the effectiveness of procurement policy and of expenditure.
As to the future, it is clear from the Gulf experience that the Royal Air Force needs to procure a modern, highlymanoeuvrable combat aircraft with a low radar signature. In that respect, I refer to the European fighter aircraft. The point I made earlier in an intervention stands. We tend to talk about stealth in terms of certain aircraft having it and others not having it. In reality, the position is different. Most modern aircraft have lower radar signatures than their predecessors. Most modern aircraft have some stealth capabilities.
The radar signature of EFA is considerably smaller than that of the Tornado, largely because of the composite materials used and because of certain characteristics of the aircraft itself. Regardless of the view of our German partners, the programme should go ahead on its own or with our partners. It is vital to the north-west, which I represent, because it would provide a high-tech heart for industry there. Without EFA, thousands of jobs would be at risk. Not only that, but we would not have the long-term research and development capability to develop other systems.
I wish that we could have from others, particularly some members of the Labour party, the same firm commitment that we have received from the Minister this evening and previously. In my area, I have tried two or three times to get a firm commitment to EFA from the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, but I have not so far succeeded, nor have I got a commitment from some Labour Members in the region. It is vital to employment in the north-west, and particularly in Lancashire, that we all fight together to ensure that the project goes ahead.
The project is important to the Royal Air Force, because it would provide huge export potential. It is relatively cheap compared to some aircraft that are being put in the same category. It is also an advanced aircraft, with advanced engines and aerodynamics. It is a highly cost-effective solution to many of the needs of the Royal Air Force, and indeed of other air forces as well.
I shall now say a few words about the future organisation of the Royal Air Force. I am frankly worried about the blurring of the balance between the need to keep the defence budget this year and next year within bounds and the need specified for our long-term defence in

509
"Options for Change". Earlier tonight, the exchange on the Bloodhound missile demonstrated the problem clearly. The decision on that was taken largely to save money in the short term. It seemed to provide a good solution: an elderly missile coming to the end of its useful life, so we are told, could easily be got rid of and we could save some money in the short term. However, little thought was given to this decision and what it would do to the overall air defence of the United Kingdom.
Paramount in people's minds after "Options for Change", and after we have reassessed our contribution to NATO on the continent, should be the air defence of the United Kingdom. I cannot think of any other task that the Royal Air Force will have to fulfil in the future that could be put above that need. Therefore, in a way, it is the one clear and positive RAF role, surrounded by a number of other roles, that are probably open to some doubt. That role will probably become more important, because a number of the aircraft at the moment based in Germany will return to the United Kingdom, and they will need to be defended as well.
Perhaps I am labouring this point, but it has always been my understanding of the air defence environment in the United Kingdom that it can be split into three. There is the point defence of airfields, largely looked after by the RAF Regiment, with missiles such as Rapier and various types of anti-aircraft guns. Then there are the medium-range needs of air defence, out to 60 or 70 miles, or, in the case of the Bloodhound, even up to 150 or 200 miles in certain cases. The air defence of the United Kingdom or, more specifically, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, in that range has been carried out by the Bloodhound missile. Indeed, I can remember well, in the 1970s, Bloodhound missiles being withdrawn from Germany and Cyprus to fill what was then considered to be a gap in our air defence.
Interestingly, we then had two fighters, the Lightning and the Phantom, that could be considered capable of filling that need. They were relatively short-range aircraft, certainly in the case of the Lightning, and in the case of the Phantom highly manoeuvrable. Following the decision to scrap the Bloodhound at the end of this year, we have a highly effective short-range air defence system, a highly effective long-range air defence system in the form of the Tornado F3, but, as far as I can see, nothing in between.
Air Commodore Day gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence as recently as last month. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) about this problem. My hon. Friend said:
"That is well understood but what I have difficulty in understanding is you as a professional Air Force officer, accepting a four-year gap with nothing. Are you happy about that?"
Air Commodore Day replied:
"No, we are not happy but I think one has to say that is the situation we have ended up in and where we believe it is not cost-effective to run on Bloodhound."
Well, it may or may not be cost-effective to run on Bloodhound but it is cost-effective to run on something; it must be more cost-effective to do that than to leave this gap. Whereas the Lightning and the Phantom had the capability to operate in this air defence gap relatively effectively, although not effectively enough to fill that role in the eyes of former RAF chiefs when they withdrew the Bloodhound from Germany to the United Kingdom, the
510
Tornado F3 is not the aircraft to fill that gap, because it has been specifically designed to do something else. It is a long-range interceptor and it is not as highly manoeuvrable as the Phantom and the Lightning, in certain instances. Most important of all, if it, or its radar, has a shortfall at all, it is in short-range combat, for which it was not designed.
I hope that when my hon. Friend is winding up, he will promise to give serious consideration to looking closely at the possibility of shrinking that gap, which now looks as if it is inevitable, and procuring a missile which I believe is essential for one of the primary tasks of the Air Force, whatever else is decided as a result of "Options for Change".
Apart from air defence, a number of other roles will also be important to the Royal Air Force. We have heard quite a lot tonight about the strike attack Tornado, the GR1. I have mentioned briefly the GR1A, the recce aircraft, but the GR1 has a great length of life ahead of it. Its one shortfall has been its short range. One of the lessons of the Gulf is that equipping it with, ironically, the long-range tanks originally specified for the F3, has made it a much more effective aircraft. That, coupled with the flight refuelling capability, which is being enhanced, should mean that that aircraft has many years of useful life ahead of it. As with stealth, which I mentioned briefly earlier, there is the possibility of adding on things to reduce its radar signature further and give it an operational life well into the next century.
There is one thing lacking, however, and that too has been mentioned tonight: a stand-off weapon capability, and not just a short-range stand-off capability, so that the aircraft is able not only to take out runways into the foreseeable future but to fulfil its primary role of strike more effectively. I am talking about an air-launched missile, either nuclear or conventional, with a range of at least 200 or 300 km. With that capacity, that aircraft will remain effective well on into the next century. Equipped with some of the smart weaponry that we have seen working so effectively in the Gulf, it will provide an excellent weapons platform with an excellent performance. We must not forget our commitment to, and the importance of, the concept and development of the Harrier, which can take off over a short distance or vertically. In the years ahead, the Harrier will provide a more effective means of delivering air power than will aircraft that take off and land conventionally.
I want to refer to another interesting lesson that has been learnt from the Gulf war. The Iraqis, indeed, like NATO in western Europe, built considerable numbers of concrete shelters. Countries put their aircraft inside those shelters, thinking that they were safe. To realise how untrue that was, one had only to look at some of the magazine and television pictures of holes in the sides of extremely strong concrete shelters, inside which bombs had caused devastation. In other words, such shelters, far from providing protection, acted as traps. It is highly significant that the Iraqis decided that the one means of getting round this problem was to tow aircraft off airfields and park them beside hospitals, houses and anything else that might deter attacks on them.
Long ago, of course, the Harrier embodied the concept of dispersal. I envisage the development of that aircraft in a supersonic mode, with smart weaponry and, possibly, stealth characteristics. Of course, it is very difficult to combine short take-off and landing and vertical take-off

511
and landing capability with stealth capability. If it can be done, however, it will provide the sort of aircraft that will see us well into the next century.
Here, too, we have demonstrated the need for a highly efficient research and development base on this side of the Atlantic. In our decisions about what to do in this sphere, we shall have to be quite ruthless. We shall not be able, as we were 10 or 15 years ago, to spread our research and development effort widely. It would be too expensive to do so. We shall have to be highly selective in deciding which sectors it is critical to keep in this country, or on this side of the Atlantic, and then go for those sectors. I suspect that many of them will be in avionics and electronics. With the shrinkage that must take place in the size of the Air Force, we shall have to spend on research and development capability—I stress the word "capability"—a high proportion of whatever money is made available for defence so that we may be able to react quickly to a change in circumstances, a change in perception, or a change in the sort of weapons that a potential aggressor may be able to develop in a short period.
It is important to think about the overall system for weapons. Let me refer to a problem that we have had in the past. An air-launched weapon system is made up of three or four parts—the airframe, the engines, the avionics, and the weapon. These tend not to be developed together. Perhaps the developers get the airframe right first, and it flies around with a lump of concrete in the nose. Indeed, that has happened occasionally in recent times. Then the engine is developed to its full potential, and, rather belatedly, the avionics make an appearance. Finally, the weapon system has to be strapped on, and the various parts have to operate together. In future, we shall have to ensure that the whole system works properly.
Next to my notes I have written "Foxhunter". I do not want to say anything about that, other than that it is a classic example of a highly successful airframe doing the job that it was designed to do, but also of an aircraft whose radar, so critical to the F3's role, fell behind, and did not meet the specifications—indeed, in some instances, it was slightly inferior to the radar on the Phantom. That sort of thing results in the downgrading of an entire weapon system. Until a whole system comes together, taxpayers' money is wasted.
Unless we are careful, we shall be in danger of falling into this trap in the development of air-to-air weaponry. I do not wish tonight to deal in any detail with the transatlantic agreements for the development of long-range and short-range air-to-air weapons. However, we may have been here before. We go along with a bargain and agree to buy the other nation's product. I am thinking in terms of helicopters in relation to the French, as well as our willingness to go along with the American side of the transatlantic bargain. When it comes to the Americans' agreeing to our having design leadership on this side of the Atlantic, things get a bit wobbly. Perhaps, they say, it is not such a good idea; perhaps they will simply develop the Sidewinder missile further—which, I understand, they are thinking of doing.
I shall say only that I have a shrewd suspicion that, if we were to come back in two or three years' time, the United States would be offering us that modernised Sidewinder—or, indeed, a brand new short-range missile that it then decided to develop, following our initial loss of capability to produce any sort of air-to-air missile. It is important that we maintain our capability to develop
512
air-to-air missiles further, if that is necessary. That is one of the critical sectors into which I feel we must put research and development funds in future.
We must not, however, forget the other roles played so well by the RAF in the recent and, indeed, the distant past. Earlier tonight, reference was made to the Hercules, which I believe has now been in service for about 24 years. It must come to the end of its useful life quite soon. I fully accept what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. It is very easy for Back Benchers to list all the aircraft that need to be replaced, but it is not so easy to find the money to replace them. I am not suggesting that we should go out and procure a replacement for the Hercules; I am merely saying that this is an interesting aspect of aviation.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the Americans clearly understand the shift that pushes research development money spent on military matters towards helping their commercial aircraft programmes. Every aircraft that Boeing has produced over the past 40 years—until the development of its latest model, the 777—has been funded largely by the Department of Defence. It is interesting to note that when, for the first time, Boeing had to decide to develop a new aircraft itself, it took an awfully long time to do so, and then decided that the only way in which it could afford it was to bring in partners from outside—the Japanese, for instance.
In the development of new transport for the RAF, I see a direct spin-off for this country and, indeed, for the European aircraft industry. That should not be lost on us. We are in heavy competition with the Americans, and, I suggest, we shall be in equally heavy competition with others in the future—in the business of what are now lucrative returns, but will remain so in the long term only if we are prepared to put down a substantial amount initially.
There is a synergy between the development of new transport aircraft for the RAF and the development of new airliners for our airlines in this country and abroad. Although there is slightly less synergy, there are also similarities between the need to develop a replacement for the Nimrod and the parallel circumstances in commercial aviation.
The decision on Nimrod is rather different. I think that I am right in saying that the avionics are rather ahead of the airframe. The avionics that will go into the EH101—as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said at length, and with great knowledge—is ahead of the game; it is the most effective anti-submarine avionics in the world. It could, indeed, be suggested that the role of the maritime force in the RAF could—in part at least—be met by a helicopter-borne force. That might be one solution. None the less, we shall have to look at either re-engineering or heavily modifying the Nimrod force. It should be borne in mind that the design goes right back to the Comet, so there is a big question mark over whether it can be allowed to continue much longer or whether we shall have to go for a brand-new aircraft.
Here again, we are talking about possibly a twin-engined aircraft with perhaps not the same capability as the Nimrod, bearing in mind what I have said about the use of helicopters and the fact that the Nimrod was produced, or at least developed, at a time when Britain still had a role in many parts of the world where it is no longer as important for us to have a presence. It may be that we can get away with a smaller airframe, and it may be that

513
that would form part of the same sort of development programme that would go into the development of a STOL transport plane. There is a similarity there, and if that is looked at closely enough, it will be seen that there will be a lot of synergy with the development of civilian aircraft.
Earlier tonight, a couple of my hon. Friends mentioned training. That is an interesting subject, for a number of reasons. First, I think that the jury is still out on the effectiveness of the Tucano. It was probably, on balance, right to go for a turbo-prop trainer, but I am not fully convinced of the arguments that it was quite as cheap as was said at the time.
There is a trade-off between an aircraft such as the Tucano and the one it replaced. It goes more slowly than the one it replaced and does not fly as high, and as a result, the amount of training that can be done on it in preparation for the next stage of training on the Hawk is a little limited on the edge of the flight envelope. It is important for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department accurately to assess the benefits of Tucano training, going on to the Hawk afterwards, to see where the crossover point is and to ensure that we are not effectively comparing apples with oranges, saying that the Tucano is much cheaper to operate than the Jet Provost because it can be turned round quickly, does not use so much fuel and is a much simpler aircraft, and then finding out in a year or two that it is necessary to increase the length of the Hawk course. As soon as that is done, any saving that was made is rapidly diminished. I am not saying that the decision to go for turbo-prop training is wrong, simply that it is not quite as efficient as has been made out.
I spoke briefly earlier about the EH101. That helicopter programme is important. It has been on the stocks for some time. A decision has still not been made to procure it either for the Royal Navy or the Air Force. In terms of its role for the Air Force, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is the only viable solution. There is a lot of discussion about whether it would be better to buy a few Chinooks and perhaps the Black Hawk. However, I understand that the Black Hawk suffers from the rather ecentric disadvantage of not being able to accommodate a guardsman with his helmet on. I do not know whether that is a relevant point to take into account on the procurement of a helicopter to transport troops across the country or across Europe, but I suspect that somewhere in the Ministry of Defence, something along those lines will be written suggesting that that is an important reason for not buying the Black Hawk.
The EH101, particularly with its RTM322 engine, is a highly effective helicopter. It has been expensive to develop, but it seems to fulfil many of the needs of the Navy and the Air Force. It may not fulfil them all, but it would be a mistake to procure one aircraft for the Navy or the Air Force and then to decide that it does not quite fit the bill and that something else should be procured. If experience is anything to go by, having taken a decision, the Air Force—and to a lesser extent the Navy—has quite a reputation for changing its mind a year or so later and for looking rather enviously over its shoulder at what the other service possesses and deciding that the alternative would be better. In that regard, the Navy had the
514
Buccaneer first; rather belatedly, the Air Force accepted that it was an extremely good aircraft and procured it. Conversely, the Navy realised that it could continue to use the Harrier when the larger carriers were cancelled under the Labour Government.
I now want to consider the future organisation of the RAF. We have an opportunity with "Options for Change" and the changes in our relationship with the eastern bloc nations to consider closely the way in which the RAF is organised. The Binbrook scheme for the organisation of RAF stations dates back to the early 1950s. Binbrook station has sadly shut, but if nothing else, that shows the length of time that the scheme has been running. The scheme has three prongs based on an operational wing, an administrative wing and an engineering wing. Is such a scheme right for the 1990s?
Are we not spending a little too much money on the support services and in particular on the administrative wing? In this age of modern technology, could we not get by with slightly fewer wing commanders on station, for example looking after station headquarters? What about the number of ranks in the RAF? There are about 11 ranks in the service. Is that too many for a shrinking force? Surely that is too many for a level of management and command necessary for a force that will soon be reduced to 60,000 or 70,000 personnel.
Should we not consider closely whether we can get away with fewer personnel, particularly in the higher ranks, who spend a high proportion of their careers across the road in the Ministry of Defence? Should we not consider more closely the ratio of people on operational stations, engineers servicing aircraft and the number of people in administration back here in the MOD? With our commitment to NATO reducing in terms of numbers, I am absolutely convinced that we can probably make do with a slimmed-down command headquarters and a greater proportion of the RAF based where the action is—next to the aircraft.
If I have any worry, it is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire explained, there will be a conflict between the Treasury's desire to make cuts in the RAF everywhere and anywhere and the desire of the RAF hierarchy to resist those cuts. If we are not careful, we will end up with the worst of both worlds—an unbalanced force that is heavily bureaucratic and unable to intervene effectively to support our legitimate interests wherever they may be. That must not be allowed to happen. Knowing my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement as I do, I strongly suspect that he will not allow it to happen.
9.19 pm
Dr. John Reid: Despite the attractions of the local government elections, we have had an interesting and substantial debate tonight, and that is to the credit of all those who have participated. It is also a timely debate. Last year, the Royal Air Force debate took place during the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain. Although I did not participate in that debate, few of those who did would have thought that, within 12 months, the RAF would again be in action and our young service men and women called upon to risk their lives in war, once again against a brutal dictator.
I add my tribute to those that have already been paid to the skill and courage of the pilots, the ground crews and

515
the associated support services. We must include in that tribute the headquarters, the civil service and the families. In particular, we pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in the fight for justice and against tyranny. I know from the tributes that have already been paid that I speak for the whole House in sending our condolences to the families. The country owes them a great debt. We are proud of them and we are grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge our debt to them.
I did not visit the Gulf. As I listened to the speeches tonight, I increasingly came to the conclusion that I was the only Member in the House who did not do so. At one stage, I began to wonder how the aircraft managed to take off in what must have been an extremely crowded area. Never in the history of human conflict have apparently so many visited such a small place in so short a time.
Although I did not visit the Gulf, I subsequently visited RAF Germany, and spoke to some of the air crew who had been involved in the war. I was impressed by the determination and sacrifice of all those involved, including those who had remained at home and, as the Minister said, done without free time and time with their families for many weekends, over many months, so that they could provide the support necessary for the effort in the Gulf.
Not having visited the Gulf is only my first disadvantage. Another is that many of those who have spoken tonight have far greater personal experience than I of the matters that we are discussing. That is partly because many of them are older than I am, and partly because of their service in the Royal Air Force in particular, and in the armed forces in general. A number of speeches were based on that personal experience, especially that of the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), to whom I listened with great interest. His speech was of some length, but necessarily so as there was some substance in it. He made a thoughtful speech.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) gave us a valuable insight into the Gulf, and an especially valuable insight into the potential of our reserve forces. I have read our previous debates, and the hon. gentleman's speech tonight was very much in keeping with his previous speeches. At the risk of ending his career, I recall that last year my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggested that the hon. Gentleman would do well to assist the Ministry of Defence as an adviser.
The hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tynemouth (M r. Trotter) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made important points, although I am not sure that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tynemouth that guard duty should be hived off to the reserve forces, whether the Territorial Army or the Royal Air Force Reserve, would be effective in assisting recruitment. Nor am I sure that the confidence in the reserve forces shown by hon. Members on both sides of the House is necessarily reflected, according to rumour, in some of the options being considered by the Ministry of Defence, especially for the Territorial Army. That has been sufficiently alarming to cause a number of hon. Members to demand Adjournment debates on the matter so that they can outline their fears.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth praised the armed forces parlimentary scheme. I endorse that, as someone
516
who spent a month, not with the RAF, but with the Army. I found that experience valuable, as I hope did the armed forces.
Not surprisingly, one of the main issues in the debate has been the lessons that can be learned from the Gulf war, as has correctly been mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), for Ruislip-Northwood and for Wyre and by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). It is precisely because of the sacrifices made by our service men and women that an even greater burden than usual is placed on those of us who must ultimately ask for that sacrifice when we seek to examine with great clarity and care the operational aspects of Operation Granby.
I do not underestimate or diminish the might of Iraq's forces which, surprisingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) seemed to do. It is unfortunate that he is no longer in his place. I do not underestimate the potential power that then lay within the armed forces of Iraq. The House will not be surprised if I express my amazement that such an underestimate was made tonight, because the people who are now telling us in retrospect that we were too hard on the poor Iraqis are the very people who spent the previous six months warning us that the body bags would be coming home and that blood would flow through Iraq in rivers because we were taking on one of the strongest armies in the world. Consistency is helpful in approaching such matters.
No one should seek to diminish the power of the Iraqi armed forces and thereby the determination, courage and accomplishments of our forces. The allied air campaign during the Gulf war was one of the most successful in history. I take issue again with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton: notwithstanding his comments, I believe that that air campaign was probably also the most precise in history. To be perfectly truthful, I wish that some of the siren voices that were raised during that difficult time about the horrendous possibilities of endangering and damaging the shrines in Iraq were now wailing as loudly about the fact that, without any recourse to conscience or religious sentiment, the Iraqi dictator has laid bare not only nations within Iraq but its shrines and places of worship.
The allied air losses were astonishingly light. The RAF lost six aircraft in combat—all Tornados—out of a total of 4,000 combat sorties. As has been said, once it was pinned to the ground, the Iraqi air force ceased to pose a serious threat, and the Iraqi planes that eventually took off flew to Iran. We must remind ourselves that that was precisely because of the RAF's activity in the initial period, and no doubt was also due to the quick learning processes of the Iraqi air force. It learned that, when facing the RAF and the United States and allied forces when they were in that mood, discretion was often the best part of valour.
We are indebted to the hon. Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood for mentioning the calculated political decision that was taken by the revolutionary command structure and by Saddam Hussein himself to play a long game and to preserve intact some elements of his forces.
Those facts are a testament not to the lack of vitality or potential power of the Iraqi air force or army, but to the superior quality of our pilots and the technology that they employed. Nevertheless, valuable lessons can be learned by assessing the air campaign, especially about the use of low flying. I admire the courage with which this matter was

517
referred to by several hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and the hon. Member for Wyre, because I believe that we have a duty to reappraise our tactics as carefully as possible. That duty is all the more arduous and important because lives were lost.
The issue of low flying is a tactical and legitimate question and we should not demean it by suggesting that it is treasonable or indicative of splits within the parties or the House to question whether it is tactical. We must reappraise low flying not because that tactic was necessarily wrong or foolish, far less because it was known to be so in advance, and certainly not because it was ineffective—we can all accept those three premises—but because we have a duty and an obligation to inspect and to examine tactics whenever and however lives are lost.
Five of the Tornados that were lost in action were lost during the first week of the air campaign. It is not yet apparent whether low flying was a major contributory factor in those comparatively high losses. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred to other factors which may have been involved. But it is surely no coincidence that when the RAF tactics were varied and Buccaneers were deployed to provide laser targeting from a higher altitude, the attrition rates dropped. It is also significant that, having sustained the loss of two combat aircraft in the first hours of the war, the United States navy abandoned low flying within 24 hours.
I do not argue that low flying should be discarded as a tactic. It can offer a pilot an important element of surprise. The delivery of the JP233 runway denial weapon undoubtedly played a significant part in achieving the air superiority which was necessary and ultimately saved hundreds, perhaps thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives. But a legitimate question can be asked about the extent to which we can continue to rely on low flying, especially in the context of a protracted war. We all agree that, even if the same intent and capability remained in the Soviet Union, a blitzkrieg attack from that direction would not be possible. We would face a protracted war, with the continual need to go back to runway denial. That is the context in which we should examine the need for low flying.
We knew in advance, and the Gulf war illustrated in practice, that there was a variety of other ways in which enemy air defences could be penetrated, such as use of stealth technology, electronic jamming of radar, anti-radar missiles and stand-off missiles that can be delivered from outside enemy air space. We should encourage the professionalism of the RAF to ensure that the most comprehensive appraisal can take place.
Can the Minister tell us this evening whether the options to which I referred are being studied by the MOD? I say that in advance lest I list some questions and at the end the Minister simply says that I am asking him to give a positive response to them all. I am not doing that. However, I should like to know whether at least some of them are being thought about and that somewhere along the line there is at least the prospect of a decision being taken on the occasional question that we raise.
Can the Minister tell us whether future RAF specifications will include stealth features—a matter raised by several hon. Members tonight? Has any consideration
518
been given to developing a runway denial weapon with a stand-off capability? That specific point was made by the hon. Member for Wyre. When asked about the matter earlier, the Minister said that the question was premature. That is a word to which I shall return later. I hope that we shall have at least some initial response, because the matter is important.
I am sure that all hon. Members present agree that, within financial constraints, the RAF should be allowed to keep pace with technological change. Many developments seem to point the way to the future in the light of the practical experience of the Gulf war. It is also important that the RAF has available to it a broad range of options in addition to low flying. It should not run the risk of being a one-club golfer. For those reasons, we urge a reappraisal of the degree to which we rely on low flying.
As several hon. Members have said, although the Gulf and other out-of-area operations are important, by definition they are supplementary to the prime function of the Government and the defence structure—the defence of the United Kingdom. I wish to raise three matters that give rise to considerable anxiety and which several hon. Members have mentioned this evening. The first is the Tornado F3 and its replacement. It has become apparent that the main threat which the F3 was originally designed to combat—the heavy bomber—is in the process of being supplanted. In those circumstances, a more agile and manoeuvrable aircraft is required.
Perhaps just as worrying are the rumours that the F3 has already developed airframe fatigue problems. That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny those rumours. Whether they are true or not, the new circumstances point even more directly and urgently to the need to bring the European fighter aircraft into service as soon as possible. Many hon. Members mentioned the doubts about German participation. I am sure that we were all extremely pleased to hear the Minister give a strong commitment to the House on Tuesday that we would proceed with EFA even if the other partners withdrew. At least, I hope that my interpretation is correct. The assumption has been drawn by several hon. Members and I raise it to allow the possibility of its being denied, in case it was what was referred to earlier as the intellectual raffishness of the Minister.
We are told that the European fighter aircraft is set to enter service by 1998 or 1999, three or four years later than our original requirement. May we be assured that the latest deadline will be met, and perhaps the Minister will provide, on a scale of degree of confidence, the level of confidence that we may have in the latest deadline.
The much-discussed and vexed question of Bloodhound has been a recurring feature of today's speeches, and the issue was put well in context by the hon. Member for Wyre; I hope that my references to him will not mean that I am ending his career quickly, too. In some ways, Bloodhound seems symbolic of the way in which the Government are perceived to have approached a number of problems.
In last year's debate, when asked about a replacement for Bloodhound, the Minister—never someone to rush things—said:
"It would be premature to go into this matter in any detail."—[Official Report, 28 February 1990; Vol. 168, c. 291.]

519
Now, little more than a year later, we are told that the Bloodhound surface-to-air missile is shortly to be withdrawn from service, but will not be replaced by a new system for about four years.
I find last year's comment amazing in the context of the recent decision. It appears that the Government consider such decisions premature when they are only three years late, but somehow to be timely when they are four years overdue. The Minister said tonight, in the face of all the evidence, that there was no gap. Admittedly, he said it from a sedentary position, but that should not reduce his commitment to his expression of feeling on the subject.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House do not agree that there is no gap. Nor does Admiral Doe think there is no gap. Indeed, I suggest that there are two gaps. First, there is a gap in time and, secondly, there is the gap between Bloodhound's capability and our requirement for an adequate surface-to-air missile. The gap has grown so wide that it would apparently be better to have nothing until we can procure a replacement. That is just as disturbing as the delay, for apparently it is better to have no defence than to disturb the idle tranquillity of the procurement Ministry.
My amazement about this was exceeded only by the Minister's comment tonight that, as he put it, Bloodhound is only guarding a few Americans. That was one of the more spectacular statements among a long list of spectacular statements by the Minister. I also find it the most spectacular procurement error, judged even by the spectacular standards of the Minister. Why was it not possible to anticipate Bloodhound's obsolescence in time to replace it, if not immediately, timeously? The only answer that we have been given is that it is doing a job that is not worth doing. We hope that that was not meant to be because it is guarding a few Americans. If it is doing a job that has been worth doing, why was not the decision taken some time ago, in view of its obsolescence, the length of time it has been around and the apparent foresight that is claimed in other matters? I hope that the Minister will not find the question overly premature.
A number of hon. Members referred to IUKADGE, the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment. It has been the subject of a comprehensive and detailed report by the Select Committee on Defence. We know that when it finally enters service, the improved UKADGE is intended to provide the RAF, for the first time, with a complete picture of the United Kingdom air defence region in real time. As hon. Members have said, it will also bring us into line with NATO's command and control system.
Having been procured in the late 1970s, the improved UKADGE was intended to enter service four years ago. The four-year delay seems to be a favourite just now. It is still not ready, arid it seems unlikely to be ready in the near future.
Taken separately, those three issues—the air defence fighter, the absence of a replacement for Bloodhound and the shortcomings on the improved UKADGE—would probably not be of great significance. But taken together, they add up to serious and potentially disastrous shortcomings in British air defences. However, the Government seem remarkably casual.
In view of the time, I shall make only one general comment about "Options for Change". A great worry, shared by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, is that, despite detailed deficiencies in the policy, it has been
520
approached in a piecemeal, finance-constrained fashion, rather than with analysis, followed by the consideration of defence needs and the deployment necessary, within the context of finance, as outlined very well tonight by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East.
I worry about that, because the point was made last year by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), when he said that we had a chance to take a fresh approach to the matter. He made the plea that we should not, in examining our needs, simply say:
"Let us take away a squadron or two, or a brigade, or a division and reduce the British, German or Dutch contribution."
The hon. Member for East Hampshire, who is knowledgeable on such matters, was giving sound advice. Tragically, he seems to have predicted with remarkable quiescence and accuracy the piecemeal approach adopted by the Government.
The future defence of Europe arises out of "Options for Change." The Government's position on that, particularly the Minister's, is just as confusing as on "Options for Change". In one of the classic ironies of such debates, he spoke last year in unequivocal and laudatory terms of our
"robust and healthy institutions—the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation … the Western European Union and the European Community"—[Official Report, 28 February 1990; Vol. 168, c. 284–302.]
Despite my relative unfamiliarity with the Minister, I understand that he has not always been the greatest supporter of the EC. Since he praised the robust institutions of NATO and the WEU last year, he has, in a personal capacity—admittedly semi-detached from the Government—declared NATO redundant and is, I understand, apparently not too happy with the WEU. It appears that the robust and healthy building blocks of future European security of last year have withered unhealthily on the vine since. It would be useful to know where he thinks the future of the European defence force and structure lies.
There are many other issues that I cannot speak about in detail, including the WE177, the NATO identification system, on which the Minister said very little, and female pilots in a combat role, about which the Minister expounded at great length last year but did not mention tonight. How successful has been what the Minister last year called the imaginative package for better-qualified youngsters? How are we getting on with the 10-year programme to update and modernise the accommodation of families and single people? All those issues affect the quality of life, which was mentioned earlier but, amazingly, by only one hon. Member. On the military side, I could also mention the light attack helicopter, the EH101 and a number of other factors.
We do not ask for a decision on all those matters tonight, but we would like——
Mr. Mans: Just one.
Dr. Reid: Yes, just one would suffice, as the hon. Member for Wyre says. We should like a sign that, at some stage, a decision might be taken on one of them. I have spent all evening trying to avoid the cliché"dithering", but that cliché can be killed stone dead tonight by picking the 40 decisions that have apparently been waiting to be made for years. I hope that it is not premature in every case to make a decision.
The Government and the Minister owe those answers not only to the Opposition and the House but, above all,

521
to the service men and women and their families, without whom all the technology, sophisticated machinery and aircraft are as nothing. They, more than the Opposition and the House, have been failed by the absence of detail and it is they whom we can least afford to fail.
9.43 pm
Mr. Alan Clark: Tonight's debate has been distinguished by a number of well-informed contributions. Many hon. Members who have participated have contributed from deep personal knowledge of the topic. For that reason, it has been a valuable debate. I express my appreciation to my hon. Friends for staying behind for my winding-up speech, because I know that they have many preoccupations outside the Chamber today.
A common thread throughout the debate has been the tributes and expressions of gratitude and appreciation to all members of the Royal Air Force for their recent performance in the Gulf war and for the duties that they continue to undertake, including the latest challenge that they are meeting in the mountains of northern Iraq. I am certain that those tributes will be a great encouragement to them. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the letters that members of the forces were receiving from civilians whom they did not even know. The letters were sent out to the region during the conflict, and we have been told how valuable they found them. It is always encouraging and good for the services to receive expressions of support from the population at large, as has been amplified in the House by those of us who represent them here.
I shall do my best to answer most of the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I appreciate the implied compliment that the two sharpest members of the Opposition Front Bench have opened and wound up this debate, in contrast to their benign but somewhat inchoate colleagues, the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who have not turned out tonight. That gives an added edge to our debate this evening.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) raised the important question of the stealth factor in the design of future aircraft. We are at an early stage of considering that factor. Stealth can mean two things: stealth against radar or stealth against infra-red detection. To combine the two is not easy. As the hon. Gentlemen knows, the advanced short take-off and vertical landing aircraft is a distant project that we are considering. That is an aircraft that will come after EFA. It is at an early project design stage, but certainly the stealth factor must be considered in that. In all serious combat aircraft from now on, there must be a stealth element, but the extent to which it combines radar and infra-red is far in the distance.
The hon. Gentleman asked about low-level attacks. Many hon. Members have expressed misgivings about those. In his robust speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that, in the Gulf war context, low-level attacks were critical. In the early days of the Gulf conflict, when we had the only air force capable of positive runway denial on Iraqi airfields and we did not know that the Iraqi air force would pack up and leave the theatre, it was necessary to make such low-level attacks. A number of very brave men risked their lives repeatedly to do so. Naturally, once the operational situation had
522
changed and the Iraqi air force had left the scene, it was possible to operate at different altitudes. However, there is a general feeling that a stand-off weapon of some kind will be produced in the next generation. It is perfectly proper that the House should be discussing this subject.
The Tornado F3 fatigue problems were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and others. At one time, it was thought that those problems would be serious and would involve an expensive rectification programme. I am glad to say that it now seems not to be the case. Although routine fatigue rectifications will have to be undertaken, they are not of a catastrophic dimension but are part of the routine maintenance of the aircraft.
As for EFA, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North put into my mouth words supposedly uttered in Tuesday's defence questions which the Official Report will not substantiate. I should be very glad if we made this aircraft even if all our collaborative partners dropped out, but at this stage that is pure hypothesis—it has not been costed, and we do not know who will stay in and who will drop out. It is no more than an assertion of principle, to say that the aircraft is needed by the RAF; and we very much hope that it will enter operational service on the predicted date. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) assure the House that it will be cheaper to make EFA if Germany drops out. I wish that I thought that were true. Indeed, it may be true. We may find out whether it is, but the basis on which my hon. Friend made his calculations was not immediately apparent to me.
Some hon. Members made a great deal of the so-called gap that will ensue because we have decided to take Bloodhound out of service. Our judgment was that it had reached the end of its effective operational life, having been put into operation in 1964. It is not up to the modern range of electronic counter-measures that can be arrayed against it. Taking out of service a system that is ineffective does not create a gap—that is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said——
Mr. O'Neill rose——
Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting fidgety; does he want to intervene?
Mr. O'Neill: Perhaps the Minister can explain why, on 28 February 1990, he told the House that a decision on the future of Bloodhound was premature, yet within 14 months it has become obsolescent to such a degree that a decision can be taken to abandon it without replacement.
Mr. Clark: The answer is self-evident: 14 months is a long time—in politics, it is an eternity.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked us to jump the gun in our conclusions on various weapons systems, but we have to consider them in terms of their overall performance as assessed in the campaign. In the fulness of time that assessment will be made available to the House, and I doubt not that an interesting debate will follow.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the successor to the WE177. We are considering both United States and French options. A right decision is more important than an early one. I was particularly interested in the contribution by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who advocated more strongly than I have yet

523
heard anyone do the importance of this system, of finding a satisfactory solution for it and of the role that it is likely to play in future decades when it may be necessary to resist nuclear blackmail if the threat of a strategic ballistic strike would be inappropriate but it is nevertheless necessary to deter a nuclear conflict at a different level. The hon. Gentleman's exposition of that was exemplary——
Mr. Wilkinson: He should come and join us.
Mr. Clark: I do not want to get into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) asked about a campaign medal, and I am glad to be able to confirm that Her Majesty has been pleased to give permission for a medal especially for service during the conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire urged an early strategic plan for the future of our forces. The Committee that he chairs has been active in investigating all aspects of the contingencies that may touch on such a plan. He should appreciate that we must take account of many factors that remain uncertain: developments in relations with the Soviet Union, progress in arms control, consultations with allies and lessons from the Gulf. All those matters will have to be included in a new strategic overview. Many uncertainties inhibit a clear and coherent strategic approach.
I agreed with practically all the excellent speech by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke about the contractorisation of search and rescue. We have had an approach on that topic but do not propose to take any action until the "Options" study has been completed. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that this could involve the use of helicopters not made in the United Kingdom, and we shall pay attention to that additional factor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke about fatigue on the Tornado F3. I hope that he will accept the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan. My hon. Friend made a valid point about the need for maritime patrol aircraft to be replaced or greatly overhauled and enhanced in the next decade. I agree, but the position is not made easier by the fact that the Lockheed P7, at which we looked closely as a possible replacement for the Nimrod, will no longer be made.
It was said that perhaps we could use a twin-engined aircraft with a slightly lower performance. We have time to consider that, because the Nimrods are performing effectively. They are equipped with advanced avionics, and there is no immediate urgency to replace them. I was asked about plans for a replacement of the C130. The C130 is a strong and durable aircraft and continues to give good service. I do not think that a single C130 operated by
524
western air force, such as the United States, Great Britain or Germany, has ever been lost as a result of a mechanical defect. As I say, it is one of the best and most durable aircraft ever made.
In an interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) reminded the House of the need for a wide range of aircraft, and said that it was impossible for the RAF to carry out its many tasks with just two or three types. He also spoke about the increasing dominance of the helicopter. As they become more and more dominant in certain areas there is a need for a wide range of different types, such as transport and attack helicopters.
I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is not in the Chamber. He deplored comments about the performance of our allies during the war and said that an official had spoken about them running for the cellars. I do not think that an official said that; I seem to remember that it was an hon. Member. It may have been a member of the Government, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East called for his resignation. As he is not in the Chamber, he cannot confirm that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said that we had only eight Chinook helicopters for battlefield support. That is not so. There are more than 30, and 12 of them are presently in Turkey. He also spoke about the EH101. Work to assess the first phase of project definition is not complete and we cannot analyse the results of that work until all the lessons of the Gulf war are to hand. It has to be considered in the whole context of helicopter procurement and what helicopter we select to do which task. Certainly I take the point that he put to the House and that he based his advocacy on remarks made by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North paid an excellent tribute to the Air Training Corps in its 50th anniversary year. It is a completely worthwhile organisation supported by committed and loyal members of the community. I am grateful for the eloquent way in which he drew attention to it.
My hon. Friend also asked about the Tucano. So far 52 have been delivered to the RAF. I am pleased to tell him that it has greatly impressed both instructors and pupils.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Royal Air Force

  PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS FUND
  Ordered,
  That, in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972, Mrs. Marion Roe be appointed a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in the room of the late Sir John Stradling Thomas.—[Mr. Boswell.]

PETITION

  Brechin Infirmary
  10 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House a petition on behalf of the general practitioners, community council and citizens of Brechin and district, protesting against any major rundown or closure of general practitioner facilities at Brechin infirmary. Over 3,200 people, more than half the population of Brechin, and the equivalent of one signature for every family in the town, wish to voice their protest and to speak up for general practitioner services at the infirmary.
  The petition states:
  That there is extreme concern about the proposal from the Angus District Management Unit of Tayside Health Board to close the upper wards of Brechin Infirmary, thus reducing the general practitioner bed complement from 34 to a proposed 21, and that we believe that this cutback induced closure will not only be hopelessly inadequate to provide the level of service felt necessary by the general practitioners but that closure of the second of the three floors in the Infirmary raises severe anxieties about the future of the hospital and the services it provides for our community.
  That record of Brechin Infirmary, with its comparatively favourable bed occupancy, length of stay and range and outcome of treatments, with 79 per cent. of patients discharged back into the community after an average stay of 30 days and with almost all of the patients being over 70 years of age, shows that resources are being used well.
  That since most patients prefer to be looked after in their own community by their own GPs whenever possible, GP beds in 'Cottage Hospitals' are an extremely cost-effective way of looking after patients as well as being popular with both patients and relatives who would otherwise find visiting very difficult and we consequently believe that the policy of running down Cottage Hospitals to achieve short-term savings is short-sighted, financially silly and extremely unpopular with patients particularly the more elderly and disadvantaged.
  Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge Tayside Health Board to upgrade facilities at Brechin Infirmary and retain the maximum possible services available locally for the citizens of Brechin and district.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Disabled People (1986 Act)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for this debate, albeit short and inadequate, on a very important subject. I am grateful also to the Minister for Health for her presence.
  The House will know that there is great concern among the sponsors of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 about the Government announcement that sections 1, 2 and 3 will not now be implemented, which comes after the earlier decision not to implement for the time being section 7.
  The Minister for Health will know that I certainly was not happy—and I know that this is true of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends—about the manner of the announcement. Although I do not intend to dwell on it, even if the Prime Minister had responded to two planted questions in the way that many of us believe took place, I do not think that that was the way to deal with an Act which managed to get on the statute book because of the spirit of all-party support, which I do not think the announcement and the manner in which it was done reflected. Certainly there were two questions—one from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and one from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). I am bound to say that at one stage I was going to offer each of them a pint to produce a question on this subject in this Parliament, but I think that that would have been unfair, and my reputation for meanness would have remained intact. But I am not sure that that is the best way to deal with a subject of this kind.
  There is extreme anger and disappointment among 6·5 million disabled people in this country and their advocates and carers, who for the last five or six years have looked forward to the implementation of these sections and who are now profoundly hurt and disappointed. I have received petitions, which I hope to present next week, on behalf of some of the villagers in my own constituency, and in the town of Coatbridge. People there have been following our procedures, and they cannot understand how we can be so cynical as to put on record such an important Act and build up the hopes of people with disabilities and then later simply say that these will not be implemented.
  In case the House thinks that I have orchestrated these petitions, may I say that I have received letters from many parts of the country, including yesterday two letters from the Isle of Wight, which were quite unsolicited. That is an indication that there are very strong feelings on this issue. Those feelings are reflected in the views of voluntary organisations—I am sure that they have been made known to the hon. Lady—such as the Spastics Society, MIND and the Act Now group, which involves about 40 organisations concerned with disability.
  Yesterday, I heard a very eloquent but angry speech by Sir Brian Rix on behalf of MENCAP. He fully understands the importance of the decision not to implement these sections. That anger is shared by local authorities. I speak now after 10 o'clock, and I do not know what their political complexions are, but they participated in trying to bring this legislation into being through consultation after consultation with Minister

  527
  after Minister, and they felt that the Government were sincere in saying, as they did, that these sections would be implemented.
  I do not believe that the House has received an explanation for an extraordinary decision by the Government. Certainly, in the written replies which the hon. Lady has published, we are told that these sections have been overtaken by the Government's own National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and even by the Children Act 1989. I find that quite astonishing. I followed the debates on both those Acts very carefully and served on both the Standing Committees, and I recall nothing specific about advocacy and representation—certainly not in the Children Act.
  I have met nobody in the social services and social work in Scotland in recent days who takes the view that Government legislation in any sense comes anywhere near what the 1986 Act was attempting to achieve in terms of advocacy, representation and assessment.
  What the Government have done means even more dependence on the complaints procedure, but we are supposed to be talking about community care, a partnership. I understand that the hon. Lady was speaking about that very issue on the BBC a few minutes ago.
  But there is not a partnership when entitlement that is provided for in the 1986 Act is not provided for in subsequent legislation. There is no prospect of partnership when the Government deny what was clearly identified as an opportunity for people to seek their rights in terms of advocacy and representation. Where those do not exist, I do not see how we can have the kind of partnership to which the hon. Lady has referred.
  Community Care, which has played a very important role in respect of these matters, published a leader headed "Final Solution?" It said:
  "section 50 of the Community Care Act (to which Mrs. Bottomley specifically referred) relates almost entirely to the complaints procedure which local authorities must have in place by April. The Disabled Persons Act went far beyond this. It recognised that disabled people might need an advocate at any stage in their dealings with the Social Services Department, to help them put their views and case.
  The existence of a complaints procedure is surely a poor substitute for the wide-ranging, one-to-one advocacy envisaged under the 1986 Act."
  Those are important views. However, perhaps much more important than even these considered opinions are the views of the organisations of and for people with disabilities. For example, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation said this:
  "The National Health Service and Community Care Act does not give disabled people the absolute right to authorised representatives or the absolute right to make known their needs before an assessment is carried out, to know what the social services will provide to meet those needs, or why they will not meet needs, and the right to a review of their assessment."
  That is the difference between the Government's legislation and the provisions of the 1986 Act.
  These views were not expressed by a single, albeit important, organisation; they are shared by Age Concern—to which I shall come in a moment—Deaf Accord, National Citizens Advocacy, south Birmingham area, and many other advocacy groups, National Citizens Advocacy, the Spastics Society, MENCAP, the Scottish Care in the Community Group, the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped and many other organisations.
  528
  It is at our peril that we ignore such important views—the views of people with disabilities and of those who care for them.
  It is important that we should place on record the views of a number of organisations, if only because they are representative. In a letter to me, Age Concern said:
  "As you know, Age Concern England shares your disappointment at the Government's decision not to implement these sections. Advocacy schemes have clearly demonstrated how authorised representatives can help frail, chronically sick and disabled or confused older people by representing their wishes and interests accurately and sensitively …
  The Government have put financial constraints before the rights of disabled older people to make their wishes known and to have a guarantee that the services they receive are those which best meet their needs."
  Deaf Accord said this:
  "Deaf Accord is extremely upset and worried about the Government's decision not to implement sections, 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons Act."
  The hon. Lady may have thought the other day that I was being a bit provocative when I responded to her comment that the lion's share of the Act had been implemented. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that you had to keep us in order. The point that I am now making is that, in the absence of advocacy, the Act remains a lion without teeth. Of course I welcome those sections that have been implemented, and do not wish to diminish the importance of the legislation. But here we have Deaf Accord telling us that one of the very important sections to have been implemented—warmly welcomed by that organisation and by me—is weakened because of the absence of advocacy. Deaf Accord goes on to say:
  "Section 3 includes the provision of any services that may be necessary if a disabled person (or their authorised representative) is unable to communicate orally or in writing. The implementation of this part of the Act is absolutely essential for many profoundly deaf people who can only communicate in Sign language. Without the provision of a Sign language interpreter many deaf people are denied the right to participate in their assessment. This means, for example, that deaf school leavers do not have the right to an interpreter when being assessed under Section 5 of the Act."
  National Citizens Advocacy, south Birmingham area, said:
  "the dropping of these important sections has angered and frustrated us all within the Citizen Advocacy movement … However, whether it is through Citizen Advocacy, Self-Advocacy groups or some form of paid representation—what is vitally important must be that the principle of authorised representation is recognised and established in law, as of course it is in many other countries."
  National Citizens Advocacy said:
  "Mrs. Bottomley stated that the Department is giving financial support to a number of voluntary organisations which assist disabled people through the provision of advocates. This number is very small indeed, and in some cases health authority grants to citizen advocacy schemes have not been granted or renewed … This situation is full of irony, and will have tragic consequences for disabled people."
  Finally—while I am quoting the strongly held and considered views of organisations involved in disability—let me point out that MIND drew attention to the Law Commission's consultation paper, stating:
  "The Law Commission's consultation paper No. 119 entitled 'Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision Making: an Overview' recognises the necessity for a scheme 'to avoid the gaps, fragmentation and confusion of responsibility which exists under the present law' … It is our view that the government estimated £18 million to establish and run a formal system of authorised representatives would be a small price to pay for guaranteeing a basic human right."

  529
  The other day, the Minister and her colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health—the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell)—answered questions that I had tabled, hopefully, in preparation for tonight's debate. As can be seen from columns 42 and 43 of the Official Report of 29 April, the Ministers first had to answer my question about the meaning of the 1986 Act in terms of representation and advocacy and the number of people involved. We observed a clear distinction between the precise reply that the hon. Member for Loughborough was able to give and the vague reply that the hon. Lady gave; not because that was what she wanted to do, but because she was clearly basing her reply on the Government's legislation—which is itself very vague, and certainly not nearly as detailed as the 1986 Act in regard to the points with which I am dealing.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Loughborough—referred to the number of people with learning difficulties. He said that 25 per cent. would require representation—people with physical disabilities, elderly disabled people, people with dementia and those with sensory impairment. He actually gave a figure—which the hon. Lady was not able to do on behalf of the Government. That figure—144,000—does not seem much when we remember that there are 6–5 million people with disabilities in this country. The House of Commons recognised that, as did the other place when it passed the Act unanimously.
  What we learn from the answers to those questions is that it would cost £40 for each authorised representative each week—about 75p per person, which is surely not a colossal amount. Representation is a right, especially if we mean what we say about community care. Time after time—as I have been reminded this week—decisions are being made for people with disabilities, often by local authorities and bureaucrats. Advocacy would have given those people access to the decision-making process, which I believe has been denied to many people, and will continue to be as long as the relevant sections of the Act remain unimplemented.
  Under the 1990 Act, assessments will be made only when a local authority decides that it "appears" necessary. Surely community care should go well beyond that, and involve the rights and the needs of the client and the services that should be provided, with proper assessment involving advocates where they are in place. The absence of that means that decisions about the quality of life for many of our people, for the elderly, including disabled elderly people, for the physically disabled, for carers and for advocates themselves, are being taken by people who happen to have power, a power which is not always shared or used in the best interests of the consumer.
  That is why I believe that the Select Committee on Social Services was firm in recommending to the House that, if we genuinely believe in community care in practice, sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act, as well as section 7, which deals with persons being discharged from long-stay psychiatric hospitals, often into the community without any preparation being made for them, are absolutely vital if we are to begin to address the problems that are out there in the community.
  In recent days, since we apparently take the view that people with disabilities should have a say, I thought that
  530
  I would take the opportunity to listen to what some advocates have to say, and I shall conclude on that note. I am sure that the Minister will curb her impatience; it will not take too long.
  I visited Southwark disablement association the day before yesterday, where I met a number of interesting and inspiring people such as Ben Clarke and John McGowan, but in particular I met a woman called Biray. She was in a wheelchair, and the head of a single-parent family with two children. She said that she went to her advocate, John—happily, advocacy exists there; the best practice that we want to see spread throughout the United Kingdom—who happened to be sitting in the room with us because she did not think that anyone listened to people such as her; she was just another person on whom sometimes people even hung up on on the telephone. She was wise to go to her advocate, because he managed to negotiate with the social security office, where it was discovered that she was being paid £16 less than her entitlement on income support. He was also able to ensure that she was put on the list for special housing in the docks area, much to her pleasure and to his.
  It is interesting that her advocate was himself in a wheelchair, showing that advocacy can go far wider, involving self-advocacy as well as citizens' advocacy and professional advocacy, in order to give community care real meaning.
  I met too in Islington Jean Willson, the chairman of Islington MENCAP. She has a daughter, Victoria, who is now 20, with severe learning and physical disabilities. After a lifetime of dedication from her mother, Victoria is now in her own little bungalow. But the kind of dedication that we see there would have been helped considerably by advocacy.
  I end by referring to Mary Albert, and Gerald Coyle, in my constituency, to whom I have referred previously. The parents' commitment there to a young man with learning difficulties is colossal. They fervently hope that we mean what we say about advocacy, because they want to know what will happen to Gerald after they have gone. That is a question that many people have asked, but they will not get a response until we implement fully the sections that we are discussing.
  10.23 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I have listened with sympathy and considerable respect to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), but in the examples that he gave at the end of his remarks he demonstrated so effectively the way in which the philosophy and thinking behind the 1986 Act are already being taken up and incorporated in good social services practice throughout the country.
  I recognise that our decision not to implement those sections, at least for the time being, has caused considerable disappointment. The hon. Gentleman is reluctant to be persuaded that the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which are so dear to his heart, could be and have been overtaken by a major initiative mounted by this Government. In our implementation of care in the community, there is no doubt that the spirit and the principle of the 1986 Act have been developed and elaborated upon to ensure that the many frail, vulnerable

  531
  and disabled people in the community have their services provided in that spirit of partnership that has so shifted our thinking about the provision of support.
  The programme "Does he take sugar?" has a message for us all. The principles enshrined in the 1986 Act have profoundly changed our views of the welfare state. We have moved away from the paternalistic provision of services to a spirit of partnership.
  Many of the provisions of the 1986 Act have already been established. However, the hon. Gentleman wants us to move further and faster. Our community care reforms are the most fundamental and wide-ranging measures to be taken in the area for many years. I very much hope that the substantial benefits that they will bring to all those affected by aging or disability will receive wider recognition and understanding.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to harness the enthusiasm, lobbying and commitment of the many groups that have supported the 1986 Act and ensure that that energy is translated into support for the implementation of care in the community. As local authorities carry forward their community care plans and move forward with specific work on assessment and guidance to fully implement community care, I hope that they will have the active involvement of local voluntary organisations and the disabled themselves.
  The hon. Gentleman is aware that the White Paper "Caring for People" makes it clear that we would not at the moment implement section 7 of the 1986 Act. That is partly because we have a major programme to provide support for the mentally ill in the community. The specific grant established on 1 April this year, resources amounting to £155 million over the next three years to provide support for the mentally ill and the establishment of care programmes with collaboration between health and local authorities to ensure that a group that both the hon. Gentleman and I would agree have not traditionally achieved the practical and effective support required in the community, will all make a substantial difference.
  More recently, we reached a similar decision in respect of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act, which concern the appointments and rights of authorised representatives of disabled people and the rights of disabled people to make representations. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that the establishment of complaints procedures, a requirement from 1 April this year, does not make a significant difference to those receiving the services.
  More fundamentally, it is a requirement that, in drawing up community care plans, users' and carers' interests should be considered. Furthermore, in the establishment of assessment procedures, where we have already produced the policy guidance and where we will now produce the practice guidance, there is clearly a role to promote and encourage advocacy schemes.
  We help to fund the National Citizens Advocacy, Skills for People, Barriers into Action and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf in carrying forward their guidance and support to local authorities in implementing advocacy schemes. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's example of an advocacy arrangement that he witnessed yesterday. I was present in my constituency last week to see the initiation of the commissioner of social service users and carers working to promote advocacy schemes.
  532
  I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others concerned about how we can use the spirit of those principles, in identifying, in the practice guidance that we are now preparing on assessment, how we can further encourage and promote schemes that we both agree should ensure that the wishes, interests and needs of the user are properly recognised and understood.
  We did not take the view that this was the time to introduce a statutory, formal, bureaucratic, uniform administrative procedure. It is not only a question of costs, which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree are notoriously difficult to assess: much more that, when there is such a great movement to the full implementation of community care, it is not the time statutorily to introduce this part of the hon. Gentleman's Act. I do not want him to underestimate the impact that his Act has had on our change of thinking and on the work being done to improve services for those with disabilities. The range of sections, and the work that is continuing as a result of them, is legion.
  There has been a report to Parliament on the care in the community of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Earlier this year, we had reports from the social services inspectorate about the work being done to ensure that those leaving school were properly prepared for the community. The Children Act 1989 ensures that, for the first time, children with disabilities will be under the umbrella of children's legislation, and their needs and interests recognised.
  We are aware of the importance of information schemes. Only recently we helped to fund the national disability information project, so that those with disabilities have knowledge of and access to the range of resources in the community. There has been a profound culture change in this country, so that the needs of disabled people and all those who would benefit from community care are now viewed in a profoundly different way.
  I should regret it if the hon. Gentleman felt that there was any discourtesy in the way in which the decisions have been announced. That was not the intention of any of the Ministers involved. I wish to make it clear that the all-party disablement group, the Act Now group, and the many voluntary organisations that have made a magnificent contribution to advancing improved care for the disabled, will continue to have an open door to my Department. We want to ensure that all the principles in the hon. Gentleman's Act are developed in our community care implementation. I call on him and on all the groups with which he works to work with us to ensure that community care is a success. As we turn policy into practice, we want to ensure that those larger groups of people in need of support in the community receive the help, partnership and assistance that is so important.
  We have a major implementation programme; we have the largest increase in spending on social service departments for 15 years; we have a raft of policy guidance. We need the good will of the hon. Gentleman and everyone else to ensure that those policies are the success that he and I want them to be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Association of Probation Officers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the National Association of Probation Officers to discuss the new framework for the probation service.

  Mr. John Patten
  The then Home Secretary met the National Association of Probation Officers on 3 August 1987 to discuss "Probation—The Next Five Years", a statement produced jointly by the Central Council of Probation Committees, the Association of Chief Probation Officers and NAPO.

  Cars (Anti-Theft Measures)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now discuss with representatives of the motoring organisations, consumer associations and motor manufacturers the desirability of fitting laminated glass in cars to enhance their anti-theft properties.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are considering this matter, in consultation with others. In doing so, we must take account of both the security and safety implications of fitting laminated glass.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet representatives of the motor manufacturers to discuss increasing anti-theft standards in automobiles.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend met the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 24 April and he and I met representatives from 11 motor manufacturing companies on 29 April to discuss car security. At these meetings we discussed measures that could be taken by the manufacturers further to improve car security and the individual manufacturers and SMMT will provide an update on how progress can be made in about three months' time.

  Prisoners (Visits)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that prisoners are imprisoned at a convenient distance for regular visits from their families.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Nearness to the prisoner's home or that of his or her likely visitors is a factor taken into account when sentenced prisoners are allocated to training establishments in England and Wales. But prison staff also take into account other factors, including the availability of places and security and control considerations, as well as any other needs the prisoner may have.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has made any decision on the reviews of civil defence and civil emergency planning undertaken by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Magistrates Courts, Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will announce his decision on changes in the magistrates courts in Devon;

  (2) when he expects to announce that a decision has been made on the future of the magistrates court in South Molton.

  Mr. John Patten
  We hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female police officers there were in England and Wales on 1 January 1990; what percentage of them were promoted during 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 1 January 1990, there were 13,829 women police officers in England and Wales. Information on the total numbers of officers promoted is not centrally held.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male police officers there were in England and Wales on 1 January 1990; and what percentage of them were promoted during 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 1 January 1990, there were 112,281 male police officers in England and Wales. Information on the total numbers of officers promoted is not centrally held.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prison suicides in each of the years 1987 to date in which the coroner identified lack of medical care as a material factor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  There have been five cases of self-inflicted death in prison service establishments since 1987 in which the inquest verdict on the cause of death made reference to a lack of care. Of these, one death was in 1987, three were in 1990 and one in 1991.

  The verdicts concerned did not distinguish between medical care and other means of providing care for prisoners. The duty of care is shared by all prison staff, not only medical or nursing staff. The Government are concerned to ensure that proper standards of care are achieved in prisons. We are giving very serious consideration to the recommendations made about this in the report on suicide and self-injury by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons.

  Data Protection Register
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total sum paid out in fees by the office of the Data Protection Registrar to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I set out below the registrar's expenditure on specialist advice, other than public relations, in the years since his office was established in1984:

  £

  1984–85

  15,302

  1985–86

  37,383

  1986–87

  6,558

  1987–88

  9,764

  1988–89

  36,788

  1989–90

  17,416

  1990–91

  31,229

  The budget for 1991–92 is £30,000.

  I understand separate figures for management consultancies could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Property, London
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much land his Department owns in London; and how much of that land is unused.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The most recent available information is that the Home Office owns about 230 acres of land in the Greater London area. The departmental register of unused and underused land, which is available for inspection by any member of the public, shows that the only unused portion of that land is an area of approximately 10 acres at Feltham, in the London borough of Hounslow.

  National Sporting Events
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from members of the public seeking an assurance that national sporting events will continue to be available on the main television channels as well as on cable and satellite.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Since the revised list of events drawn up under section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 was published on 17 April, the Home Office has received 42 letters from members of the public about it. Events on the list may not be shown on pay-per-view terms; but there has never been any guarantee that particular sporting events, whether or not included on the list, will be shown on terrestrial television services.

  Police Force Numbers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each police authority in Wales, for each of the past five years, 1991 and 1992, the recommendation made by the chief constable as to the number of police officers needed by that force to maintain an adequate level of cover.
  268
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1986 the four Welsh police authorities have made applications to the Secretary of State for increases in establishment as shown in the table:

  Dyfed-Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  1986–87

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1987–88

  nil

  17

  nil

  nil

  1988–89

  nil

  42

  41

  66

  1989–90

  nil

  33

  31

  77

  1990–91

  8

  11

  21

  67

  1991–92

  nil

  9

  nil

  nil

  1992–93

  50

  10

  30

  44

  Wolds Remand Prison
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the standard of service which will be expected of a private sector company contracted to run Wolds remand prison.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Work has now been completed on the specification for the operation of Wolds remand prison under private sector management and the selection and training requirements for prisoner custody officers. This forms part of the invitation to tender being issued to potential contractors today and a copy has been placed in the Library. Subject to the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill through Parliament and the receipt of satisfactory tenders, we would aim to award a contract in the autumn.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Work Experience
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service to what degree civil service trade unions have co-operated in secondment for work experience placements in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  Participation in work experience arrangements in the civil service, including the unions' interest in this, is a matter for individual Departments.

  In my own Department we have arranged work experience placements for a number of years with the support of unions.

ENERGY

  Brown Book
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will publish his next report on the development of the oil and gas resources of the United Kingdom, the Brown Book.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have today published the latest edition of the Brown Book, and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office. The report provides a detailed account of the development of oil and gas resources during 1990.

ENVIRONMENT

  Urban Development Corporations
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will supply for each financial year since 1981 the amount of grant in aid given by his Department to each urban development corporation.

  Grant in aid to UDCs

  £ million

  UDC

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  London Docklands

  30·183

  40·587

  62·954

  58·639

  53·616

  Merseyside

  6·107

  20·676

  31·870

  29·723

  28·325

  UDC

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  London Docklands

  64·881

  82·800

  116·415

  255·750

  332·975

  Merseyside

  27·604

  20·942

  20·535

  23·000

  24·000

  Black Country

  —

  2·443

  23·000

  38·000

  32·000

  Teesside

  —

  5·000

  20·697

  36·009

  42·135

  Trafford Park

  0·031

  10·450

  15·500

  13·300

  24·200

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  4·000

  24·016

  35·800

  37·750

  Bristol

  —

  —

  0·283

  5·000

  13·425

  Central Manchester

  —

  —

  2·500

  11·000

  14·000

  Leeds

  —

  —

  2·743

  8·750

  14·000

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  7·958

  9·500

  18·967

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his estimate of the total cost to date of the publication and distribution of poll tax registration forms;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total cost of printing and distributing poll tax reminder forms;

  (3) what is his estimate of the staffing costs of poll tax registration officers;

  (4) what is his estimate of the cost of computer equipment for the administration of poll tax registers.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not have this information. The Government provided a total of £117·5 million in the 1988–89 and 1989–90 rate support grant settlements in England for community charge preparation costs, including £55 million by way of specific grant. In addition, allocations amounting to a total of £170·3 million were made for capital expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90. The cost of collecting the charge was allowed for in the revenue support grant for 1990–91 and will continue to be supported in 1991–92.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of (i) producing and (ii) distributing the booklet sent to all households describing the working of the community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  The costs of producing the leaflet "The Community Charge (the so-called poll tax): How it will work for you" which was distributed to every household in England during May 1989 were approximately £370,000. The distribution costs were approximately £600,000.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost to date of the printing and issuing of poll tax collection books; and what was the cost of reissuing new poll tax collection notices and books following the Budget changes in poll tax levels.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on the cost of printing and issuing community charge collection books is not
  270
  Mr. Key
  The table supplies the information.

  available. Information on the cost of re-billing following the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act is not yet available, but the Government have undertaken to meet the reasonable additional costs which local authorities incur.

  Council Tax (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby the numbers in each band qualifying for a reduction in council tax on income grounds in addition to a 25 per cent. discount.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the nature of the calculation by which he arrived at an average council tax of £496 for Grimsby; and if he will list the factors which accounted for only 24 of the 29 authorities with a higher percentage spending over standard spending assessment than Grimsby having higher estimates of tax in each band.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The method used to calculate the illustrative council tax bills published on 23 April is set out on the sheet covering the tables.

  The main factors which determine the level of bills shown for each area are the level of spending in relation to standard spending assessment by all authorities providing services in the area; the proportion of properties in each of the seven bands; and the number of discounts assumed to be given in each area.

  The exemplifications published on 23 April show over half of domestic properties in Great Grimsby falling in band A, with a bill for two or more adults of £402. Single adult households will receive a 25 per cent. reduction.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Countryside Commission to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  The following table gives the available information. No figures are available prior to 1 April 1982.

  Fees paid to management consultants

  Year

  £

  1982–83

  —

  1983–84

  22,057

  1984–85

  —

  1985–86

  48,161

  1986–87

  49,974

  1987–88

  38,928

  1988–89

  12,763

  1989–90

  15,496

  1990–91

  146,837

  1991–92

  2100,000

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Nature Conservancy Council to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  Expenditure on management consultants is not recorded separately. However, expenditure on all consultancies since 1986–87 is listed. No figures are available for previous years.

  £'000

  1986–87

  71

  1987–88

  52

  1988–89

  150

  1989–90

  168

  1990–91

  175

  1991–92

  190

  1 Nature Conservancy Council for England.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Ordnance Survey to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  Records in the detail required to provide the information are not available prior to 1985–86. The available information is as follows:

  Fees paid to management consultants

  Year

  £000s

  1985–86

  276·9

  1986–87

  200·6

  1987–88

  236·8

  1988–89

  220·5

  1989–90

  242·4

  1990–91

  241·1

  The budget for 1991–92 makes provision of £374,000 for management consultants' fees.

  London Population
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment(a) what is the current level of population density per acre in London boroughs for planning purposes and (b) when it was last reviewed.

  Sir George Young
  The most recent estimates of population for each London borough are those prepared by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) for mid—1989. The population densities for each borough on that basis are given in column(A) of the table. The mid-year population estimates are revised annually by OPCS.

  The calculation of population densities for the urban areas of each London borough, excluding the main areas of open land and green belt, are available from the 1981 census. Figures on that basis are given in column (B).

  Borough

  Population density (persons/acre)

  (A)

  (B)

  Barking and Dagenham

  106

  114

  Barnet

  86

  104

  Bexley

  89

  111

  Brent

  143

  141

  Bromley

  49

  84

  Camden

  210

  183

  Croydon

  91

  101

  Ealing

  131

  124

  Enfield

  79

  119

  Greenwich

  111

  121

  Hackney

  242

  227

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  227

  220

  Haringey

  156

  165

  Harrow

  94

  116

  Havering

  49

  111

  Hillingdon

  52

  69

  Hounslow

  82

  84

  Islington

  282

  262

  Kensington and Chelsea

  269

  259

  Kingston

  89

  99

  Lambeth

  215

  222

  Lewisham

  161

  163

  Merton

  106

  106

  Newham

  141

  146

  Redbridge

  101

  124

  Richmond

  74

  69

  Southwark

  188

  180

  Sutton

  96

  106

  Tower Hamlets

  205

  175

  Waltham Forest

  131

  146

  Wandsworth

  180

  178

  Westminster

  198

  188

  City of London

  40

  42

  Sources:

  (A) is 1989 mid-year estimate of borough population by OPCS divided by the total area of the borough.

  (B) is the 1981 population density of the urban area, ie the "usually resident population" in 1981 divided by the area defined as urban by OPCS in the 1981 census.

  Caravan Sites
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities in England which have not yet been designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Sir George Young
  Sixty-three per cent. of local authorities in England are not designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. For brevity, I list those authorities which are designated by type of authority.
  273
  LONDON BOROUGHS

  Barking

  Bexley

  Camden

  Croydon

  Enfield

  Greenwich

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Islington

  Kensington & Chelsea

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Sutton

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS

  Bolton (CB)

  Bradford

  Bury (CB)

  Doncaster

  Gateshead

  Leeds (CB)

  Manchester (CB)

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  St. Helens (CB)

  Trafford

  Wolverhampton (CB)

  COUNTY AND DISTRICT COUNCILS

  Avon

  None

  Bedfordshire

  Luton

  Mid Bedfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  South Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  Chiltern

  Milton Keynes

  South Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  East Cambridgeshire

  Huntingdonshire

  Peterborough

  Cheshire

  Chester

  Cleveland

  Hartlepool

  Middlesbrough

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Cornwall

  None

  Cumbria

  None

  Derbyshire

  Bolsover

  Chesterfield

  274

  High Peak

  North East Derbyshire

  South Derbyshire

  Devon

  Plymouth (CB)

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  Christchurch

  East Dorset

  North Dorset

  Poole

  Purbeck

  West Dorset

  Weymouth and Portland

  Durham

  Chester-le-Street

  Darlington

  Derwentside

  Durham

  Easington

  Sedgefield

  Teesdale

  Wear Valley

  East Sussex

  Eastbourne

  Hastings

  Lewes

  Rother

  Wealden

  Essex

  None

  Gloucestershire

  None

  Hampshire

  None

  Hereford and Worcester

  None

  Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne

  Dacorum

  Hertsmere

  Watford

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Humberside

  None

  Isle of Wight

  None

  Kent

  Ashford

  Canterbury

  Dartford

  Dover

  Gravesham

  Maidstone

  Shepway

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Lancashire

  Hyndburn

  Lancaster

  Leicestershire

  Blaby

  Oadby and Wigston

  Lincolnshire

  Boston

  Lincoln (CB)

  West Lindsey

  275
  Norfolk

  Great Yarmouth

  Northamptonshire

  East Northamptonshire

  Kettering

  Northampton

  South Northamptonshire

  Wellingborough

  Northumberland

  Alnwich

  Berwick-Upon-Tweed

  Blyth Valley

  Castle Morpeth

  Tynedale

  Wansbeck

  North Yorkshire

  Richmondshire

  Ryedale

  Selby

  Nottinghamshire

  None

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell

  Oxford (CB)

  Shropshire

  Oswestry

  Somerset

  None

  Staffordshire

  Stoke-on-Trent (CB)

  Suffolk

  Babergh

  Ipswich

  Mid-Suffolk

  Suffolk Coastal

  Surrey

  Epsom and Ewell

  Runnymede

  Warwickshire

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  West Sussex

  Adur

  Arun

  Chichester

  Crawley

  Horsham

  Mid Sussex

  Worthing

  Wiltshire

  Kennet

  North Wiltshire

  Salisbury

  Thamesdown

  West Wiltshire

  Note: Those districts marked (CB) were designated as county boroughs and there have been subsequent boundary changes.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority planning refusals have been overruled by an inspector in the last 12 months for which figures are available.
  276
  Sir George Young
  In the 12-month period ending February 1991, 32·3 per cent of appeals to the Secretary of State, following a local authority decision to refuse a planning application, were allowed.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to afford the same rights to those who object to a planning application as apply to property developers when an appeal by the developers is made to him following refusal of planning consent by a local authority.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend is required by statute to take into account any representations about planning appeals made to him by third parties, so long as they are relevant to the case, regardless of the procedure followed. Although most third parties appear at a public local inquiry only at the inspector's discretion, inspectors are instructed not to refuse to hear such parties without good reason, particularly if the result of the inquiry could adversely affect their interests.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any plans to compensate local authorities for the money they spend to defend their planning decisions;

  (2) what steps he takes to ensure that the amount of money spent by local authorities to defend their decisions is justified and reasonable; and if he will give figures for the amount spent by each local authority for 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Sir George Young
  It is for local authorities to decide how much to spend on defending their planning decisions at appeal. Information is not available about the amount spent by each authority in the last three years. Fees for planning applications are set to recover about 50 per cent. of authorities' development control costs, which include costs incurred at appeal, and those fees are being raised progressively with the aim of covering 100 per cent. of development control costs. Where unreasonable behaviour by another party at a public local inquiry results in unnecessary expense to a local planning authority my right hon. Friend may award costs to the authority. Fifty-four such awards were made in 1989–90.

HEALTH

  Female Circumcision
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make funding available for courses for doctors and nurses for in-service training to help deal with the physical and psychological consequences of female circumcision.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 25 March, at columns 322–24. It is for the health authorities concerned to provide funding for in-service training.

  Medical Staff (South Manchester Health Authority)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) junior doctors, (b) consultants and (c) nurses were employed by the South Manchester health authority in March 1979 and March 1991, respectively.
  277
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table shows the figures for 1982 and 1989, the earliest and latest years for which comparable information is available.

  South Manchester health authority as at 30 September each year1

  1982

  1989

  Junior Doctors2

  230

  260

  Consultants

  140

  150

  Nursing and Midwifery Staff3

  3,030

  3,110

  Notes:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  2 Staff included
  Registrars, Senior House Officers, House Officers (excluding all locum staff). Senior Registrar figures are not available at a district level.

  3 Includes Agency Staff.

  Hospital Beds, South London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of beds available (i) to NHS patients and (ii) private patients in (a) Guy's hospital, (b) King's College hospital, (c) St. Thomas's hospital, (d) Lewisham and North Southwark health authority, (e) Camberwell health authority and (f) West Lambeth health authority at the beginning of each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Departmental Land, London
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much land his Department owns in London; and how much of that land is unused.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department does not own land in London. At 31 March 1990-the latest figures available

  the NHS owned approximately 1,700 hectares of land in the Greater London area, of which approximately 400 hectares had been identified as surplus to requirements.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to commission a report on the likely total job losses in opting-out hospitals in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Trusts are in the vanguard of the shift away from central control. They have the capacity and capability to use their new-found freedoms for the benefit of their patients.

  Patient Referrals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what machinery exists to deal with disputes between purchasing health authorities and non budget-holding general practitioners over the appropriateness or otherwise of referrals of patients for treatment by hospitals with which the purchasers do not have contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It has always been recognised that GPs will sometimes wish to refer a patient to a hospital or service with which the patient's district health authority (DHA) has no contract in place. District health authorities have been asked to plan to take account of this and are holding reserves of funds to meet the cost of expected levels of these referrals.
  278
  Mrs. Bottomley
  District health authorities would not generally be expected to challenge such referrals, unless they were clearly perverse or wholly unjustified on clinical grounds. However, DHAs would have to make a judgment on the relative priority of providing funding for the treatment. In an emergency, treatment will always be provided immediately and the cost met by the DHA. In non-urgent cases, DHAs will be expected to fund treatment as quickly as available resources allow, taking account of the clinical priority of the individual case.

  Clinical Treatment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's plans for dealing with those cases whereby national health service patients registered with budget-holding general practitioners are denied access to clinical treatment which is still available to those registered with non budget-holding practitioners; if he will take steps to prevent further such occurrences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Fundholding practices are responsible for purchasing a defined range of hospital treatment for their patients. For treatment not included in this range, their patients are covered by the relevant district health authority's contract. Fundholding practices are allocated budgets which have as their starting point previous hospital usage and prescribing patterns. They are neither preferentially funded nor disadvantaged compared with district health authorities.

WALES

  Computerised Systems
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if general practitioners have achieved the target set by his Department of 80 per cent. making use of computerised systems by April 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is believed that the target set, in "Agenda for Action", to have 80 per cent. of general practices in Wales computerised, has not been achieved. The current estimate is 60 to 65 per cent. computerised. The position will be confirmed through a survey of general practice computerisation presently being undertaken in England and Wales by the Department of Health. To achieve the target figures, GPs will need to be encouraged to computerise their practices. Computerisation is being promoted by:

  (a) the two GP computing advisers for Wales and family health service authority (FHSAs) IT officers.

  (b) proposed changes to the direct reimbursement scheme for GP practice computerisation to make it more flexible, and by devolving funds for managing the scheme from the Welsh Office to FHSAs.

  (c) the GP computing project which aims, over a three-year period, to increase and co-ordinate the spread and utilisation of general practice computing in Wales.

  Open-heart Surgery Centre
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of those hospitals currently being considered as the second open-heart surgery centre in south Wales.
  279
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information concerning the provision of a second cardiac facility will be announced when we have fully considered all appropriate options.

  Earlswood Roundabout (Traffic Lights)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the criteria he has used to determine delaying the installation of temporary traffic lights at the Earlswood roundabout until 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The traffic signals are to be provided as part of an improvement to Earlswood roundabout and will be permanent, operating on a part-time basis at peak periods. The roundabout is being used as a temporary access for the M4 construction between Earlswood and Lonlas. Should the improvement and the traffic lights be installed now, serious contractual problems would result.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated total spending on major improvement schemes by his Department on (a) the A55 trunk road and (b) the M4 for each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Expenditure on major improvement schemes, including schemes completed, in progress and in preparation, for each year since 1979 is:

  £ million

  A55

  M4

  1979–80

  6·3

  25·2

  1980–81

  17·4

  21·6

  1981–82

  15·0

  16·0

  1982–83

  57·0

  8·3

  1983–84

  63·4

  7·6

  1984–85

  39·4

  3·5

  1985–86

  30·6

  3·1

  1986–87

  34·7

  1·1

  1987–88

  63·6

  2·7

  1988–89

  86·2

  1·8

  1989–90

  60·7

  1·8

  1990–911

  72·1

  2·2

  Total

  546·4

  94·9

  1 Provisional.

  Unfit Meat
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library, for each of the last five years, the number of bovine animals that his veterinary officers have found to contain prohibited artificial substances rendering the meat unfit for human consumption; what is the nature of the substances; and what is the number of prosecutions which followed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on this matter is held centrally. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be placing a note in the Library of the House containing the details for Great Britain.

  Agriculture Prices
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the price levels of primary agricultural products in Wales over the last 15 years.
  280
  Mr. David Hunt
  Prices for five products are shown in the following tables:

  Calendar year

  Wheat

  Barley

  Average price (£ per tonne)

  1976

  n/a

  n/a

  1977

  78·00

  75·20

  1978

  81·30

  77·10

  1979

  94·00

  90·80

  1980

  95·50

  91·50

  1981

  106·00

  98·40

  1982

  110·70

  107·80

  1983

  121·80

  118·70

  1984

  108·37

  116·16

  1985

  110·01

  105·67

  1986

  113·65

  108·34

  1987

  112·38

  103·74

  1988

  109·14

  103·04

  1989

  121·83

  106·89

  1990

  1133·69

  1113·78

  Financial year

  Milk Average net price paid to wholesale producers (p per litre)

  Finished cattle

  Finished sheep

  Average market price (p per kg—deadweight)

  1976–77

  9·16

  n/a

  n/a

  1977–78

  9·72

  n/a

  n/a

  1978–79

  10·31

  68·34

  142·26

  1979–80

  11·28

  75·97

  138·02

  1980–81

  12·44

  76·24

  125·88

  1981–82

  13·46

  91·37

  155·48

  1982–83

  14·60

  95·38

  145·88

  1983–84

  14·87

  94·82

  143·45

  1984–85

  14·97

  94·05

  167·33

  1985–86

  15·63

  93·75

  169·85

  1986–87

  16·05

  93·79

  170·32

  1987–88

  16·60

  99·01

  185·19

  1988–89

  17·94

  110·71

  171·71

  1989–90

  19·14

  113·15

  182·80

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 = provisional

  n/a = Not available. In 1976 and 1976–77 this indicates the figures are not available on a comparable basis; when indicated for 1990–91 the figures are not yet available.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for public consultation on his second phase of the review of the all-Wales strategy for the development of services for people with a mental handicap; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We intend to publish shortly outline proposals for the future development of services for people with mental handicaps in Wales. There will be a period of public consultation on them until the late summer, including discussions with each county planning team during June and July. We will very much welcome comments from service users and their families and all others with an interest.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the timetable for the review of the all-Wales strategy for his development of services for people with a mental handicap.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The formal review of the all-Wales strategy for the development of services for people with mental handicaps was launched on 26
  281
  November 1990, and comments were invited by 22 February 1991. Almost 120 written responses were received, and we are currently considering how the strategy might be taken forward beyond the original 10 years, which will end in March 1993.

  The second round of public consultation, following the publication shortly of our outline proposals, will last until the late summer. We intend to make a final announcement about the arrangements for further development of services before the end of the year.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list(a) the total number of jobs created or safeguarded in Wales and (b) the location and number of jobs between June 1987 and May 1990;

  (2) what is his estimate of (a) the total number of jobs created or safeguarded in Wales and (b) the locations and numbers of jobs since May 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department. However, the following table shows, for each county. the total jobs expected to be created and/or safeguarded on projects associated with offers of regional selective assistance (RSA) and revised regional development grants (RDG) made during the periods 1 June 1987 to 31 May 1990 and 1 June 1990 to 29 April 1991.

  The table also shows totals of jobs achieved on projects which have attracted regional selective assistance since 1972 and revised regional development grants since 1984.

  1 June 1987 to 31 May 1990 forecast

  1 June 1990 to 29 April 1991 forecast

  Totals achieved

  Clwyd

  19,745

  2,124

  30,244

  Dyfed

  4,121

  325

  7,113

  Gwent

  13,113

  2,885

  36,371

  Gwynedd

  1,118

  725

  3,511

  Mid Glamorgan

  21,178

  8,253

  35,806

  Powys

  332

  2

  3,140

  Staff in post (numbers) as at 31 March 1991

  District general hospital

  Senior nurses and nurse managers1

  Other qualified nursing and midwifery staff

  Nursing and midwifery auxiliaries

  Ancillary staff

  MLSOs

  Other staff

  Total

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  3

  408

  97

  242

  47

  396

  1,193

  Ysbyty Maelor

  5

  826

  207

  299

  49

  536

  1,922

  Bronglais General

  —

  202

  47

  107

  18

  152

  526

  West Wales General

  2

  392

  196

  287

  31

  300

  1,208

  Royal Gwent

  3

  751

  210

  428

  77

  559

  2,028

  St. Woolos

  1

  314

  191

  234

  —

  240

  980

  Nevill Hall

  12

  447

  124

  248

  35

  360

  1,226

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  1

  474

  124

  311

  —

  317

  1,227

  Princess of Wales/Bridgend General

  3

  548

  142

  302

  47

  357

  1,399

  East Glamorgan General

  1

  559

  116

  271

  62

  320

  1,329

  Prince Charles

  1

  361

  56

  225

  39

  300

  982

  Withybush

  —

  266

  49

  —

  29

  212

  556

  University Hospital of Wales/Dental Hospital

  5

  959

  219

  641

  2

  974

  2,800

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  2

  470

  146

  265

  —

  244

  1,127

  Llandough

  1

  358

  131

  259

  —

  368

  1,117

  Singleton

  2

  361

  46

  316

  —

  231

  956

  Morriston

  4

  987

  217

  173

  39

  524

  1,944

  Neath

  1

  417

  52

  248

  29

  265

  1,012

  1 Includes midwives.

  Notes: Not all staff will work wholly at the hospitals with which they are included and staff in other units may work part of their time at the hospitals listed.
  282

  1 June 1987 to 31 May 1990 forecast

  1 June 1990 to 29 April 1991 forecast

  Totals achieved

  South Glamorgan

  6,727

  630

  9,278

  West Glamorgan

  9,443

  1,670

  14,300

  Total

  75,507

  16,614

  139,763

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to change the structure and organisation of the ambulance service in Wales, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The structure and organisation of patient transport services in Wales are currently being examined by independent consultants commissioned by the Department. I will consult widely on their recommendations before deciding whether to make any changes.

  District General Hospitals
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all district general hospitals in Wales and provide for each (a) the total establishment and (b) the actual number of employees in post on 1 April, in each case giving the total figure and the breakdown by categories including (i) consultants, (ii) junior hospital doctors, (iii) senior nurses and nurse managers, (iv) nurses, (v) auxiliary staff, (vi) MLSOs and (vii) other categories of staff.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The available information, which relates to staff in pay units associated with DGHs, is given in the table. Staff establishment figures are not available centrally and medical and dental staff in post figures are not available below district health authority level.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Welsh Development Agency to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 1 May 1991.

  Advertising
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure by the Welsh Office in 1990–91 on (a) press advertising, (b) television advertising and (c) other advertising and promotion.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 25 April 1991, at columns 537–40.

  Dentists
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists were employed in the national health service in each county in Wales in each of the last five years; and how many are currently employed.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on the number of dentists1 employed in the national health service in the years 1985 to 1989—the latest available data—is given in the table.

  County

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Clwyd

  113

  114

  122

  122

  137

  Dyfed

  104

  107

  112

  118

  115

  Gwent

  139

  139

  145

  146

  151

  Gwynedd

  81

  81

  81

  77

  80

  Mid-Glamorgan

  149

  151

  158

  160

  164

  Powys

  39

  44

  44

  44

  45

  South Glamorgan

  221

  214

  219

  215

  220

  West Glamorgan

  146

  142

  145

  153

  157

  1 General dental practitioners, including assistants, as at 1 October, community dental staff as at 30 September and hospital dental staff, excluding hospital practitioners and clinical assistants, as at 30 September.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide policy guidelines on the creation, siting and construction of wind farms in rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Detailed planning guidance on renewable energy, including wind farms, is being prepared.

  Health Service (Advertising)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the amount devoted to the national health service in Wales and (b) the percentage of expenditure under each heading that was devoted to the national health service in Wales in each of the six years 1985–86 to 1990–91 in respect of his Department's expenditure on (i) press and advertising, (ii) television advertising and (iii) other advertising and promotion.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows:
  284

  Gross expenditure on the NHS

  Years

  £ million

  1985–86

  953

  1986–87

  1,025

  1987–88

  1,135

  1988–89

  1,270

  1989–90

  1,376

  1990–91

  1,554

  Health advertising expenditure as a percentage of total Welsh Office advertising expenditure

  Percentage

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (i) Press

  0·85

  —

  (ii) TV

  92·98

  41·18

  (iii) Other

  17·01

  31·01

  Note: Figures for expenditure on advertising for the years prior to 1989–90 are not available.

  Hospitals (Trust Status)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those hospitals in Wales which have(a) asked for information about the process and implications of transfer to trust status, (b) expressed interest in transferring to trust status and (c) communicated to him or his officials a wish or intention to seek approval for transfer to trust status.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The decision on whether to apply for self-governing status is a matter for individual health service units. To date, only Pembrokeshire has indicated its intention to apply to become a national health service trust. The potential development of trusts elsewhere in Wales will become known only when formal expressions of interest have been submitted.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Additionality
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the ministerial meeting concerning additionality of funds held between himself and European Commissioner Millan on 25 April.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conclusion he came to after his meeting with Commissioner Bruce Milian on additionality.

  Mr. Lilley
  With my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and other Ministers, I met Mr. Bruce Milian, European Commissioner with responsibility for regional policies, on Thursday 25 April to discuss issues relating to the Community's structural funds.

  We discussed a range of issues concerning the funds' grants in the United Kingdom, as well as broader matters relating to the future of the funds.

  The proposed RECHAR programmes of grants for United Kingdom coalfield areas were one of the subjects discussed. The meeting helped reduce the misunderstanding there has been about the additionality of Community grants. I remain in touch with the Commission and hope that agreement will now soon be reached to enable these useful programmes to proceed.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures are as follows:

  £000

  1986·87

  382

  1987·88

  365

  1988·89

  719

  1989·90

  691

  11990·91

  581

  21991·92

  673

  1 Provisional.

  2 Budget (provisional).

  Notes:

  1. Comparable figures for the years before 1986–87 are not readily available.

  2. The figures exclude fees paid to professional advisers in connection with the proposed privatisation of the short term insurance business of ECGD.

  Personal Sequestration
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress being made by his Department on its investigation on the operation of the system of personal sequestration in Scotland; and if he will list those persons and organisations so far consulted.

  Mr. Redwood
  The evaluation is in its final stages. Officials have discussed the operation of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 with various organisations and individuals, but there has been no formal consultation process. Those who have helped include:

  Citizens Advice Scotland

  Money Advice Scotland

  The Consumer Credit Association of the UK

  The Credit Services Association

  The Scottish Courts Administration

  The Accountant in Bankruptcy

  Professor William McBryde of Dundee University

  A. M. Hamilton of McGregor Donald

  Messrs. Pannell Kerr Foster

  Messrs. Cork Gully

  Adam Berkley of Watson Personal Finance

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  I have also received, or had forwarded to me, representations on the subject from other organizations and individuals, including:

  The Radio, Electrical and Television Retailers Association

  Geoffrey Ognall of Legal & Trade

  Mrs. Maria Stepek

  N. Firestone, Firestone Wilson

  Soviet Union Export Credits
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the availability of medium-term cover to the Soviet Union from the Export Credits Guarantee Department for the use of British exporters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  ECGD cover for medium-term export credits for the Soviet Union is currently being reviewed and new commitments are not being undertaken pending the outcome of the review.
  286
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries which at present offer medium-term cover export credits for business with the Soviet Union and those which do not.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As far as is known, all OECD members are presently offering cover for medium-term export credits for the Soviet Union with the exception of Sweden, which is postponing decisions on new applications.

  Insurance Services Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contacts he has had with the chairman and chief executive of Sun Alliance regarding its proposed bid for the Insurance Services Group of ECGD.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such contacts.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what provision he made to establish a reserve price for net proceeds to the Exchequer from the sale of the Insurance Services Group of ECGD.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Price will be an important but not the sole criterion in decisions about the sale of the short-term business of ECGD.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the dates on which the management team of(a) Assicurazioni Generali, (b) NCM, (c) Trade Indemnity and (d) any other bidders visited Cardiff with a view to preparing bids for the Insurance Services Group of ECGD.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Visits to Cardiff were offered to each of the management teams of the companies invited to tender for the short-term business of ECGD. The dates on which those visits took place were as follows:

  Date

  Trade Indemnity

  3 April

  Sun Alliance

  4 April

  Assicurazioni Generali

  10 April

  NCM

  16 April

  COBAC

  17 April

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what facilities were given to representatives of the appropriate trade unions to meet the management of Assuricazioni Generali, NCM, COBAC, Eagle Star, Sun Alliance and Trade Indemnity during their exploratory visits to ECGD, Cardiff, prior to finalising their bids for the Insurance Services Group.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Each of the shortlisted companies invited to bid for the short-term business of ECGD was invited by Government to meet representatives of the appropriate trade unions during their visit to Cardiff. Each company which visited Cardiff had such a meeting.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conveniently available figures he has of the number of contract staff currently working for Scottish Natural
  287
  Heritage; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the reservoir of expertise among those who worked on contract for the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland has been kept available for Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At present there are 65 contract staff working for the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland and 19 contract staff working for the Countryside Commission for Scotland.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, it is hoped that Scottish Natural Heritage will be established on 1 April 1992. Staff on contracts with the predecessor bodies with termination dates after 1 April 1992 will have their contracts honoured. Scottish Natural Heritage will also be able to appoint or re-appoint contract staff where appropriate. Decisions on staff levels and structures will be taken later this year.

  Local Tax Exemplifications
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a detailed note on the methodology and valuation estimates used to produce his recent local tax exemplifications for Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Details of the basis of calculation of the exemplifications were provided in a note that accompanied the figures. If the hon. Member has any specific queries not covered in the note, I would be happy to respond to them.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is held by the district valuer on capital valuation of domestic properties in(a) the public and (b) the private sector in Scotland; and if any other section of the Inland Revenue provided capital valuation information for his recent exemplifications for a local tax in Scotland.

  Mr. Maples
  I have been asked to reply.

  The valuation office Scotland holds for valuation and land ownership purposes information about various types of property, including a record of all sales of heritable property obtained from the public records or the Department of Registers of Scotland. No other part of the Revenue provided capital valuation information to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Urban Motorways
  Mr. David Marshall
  to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total mileage of urban motorway in each urban area of Scotland(a) already constructed and in operation, (b) under construction at present and (c) planned for the future.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of public road lengths by region and class as at 1 April 1990 are given in table 5·2 of "Scottish Transport Statistics 1989". The figures for Strathclyde region include 47 km of motorway within the Glasgow city boundary. As urban motorways are the responsibility of local roads authorities, their construction and planning are dependent on local authority processing of statutory procedures and availability of finance. These plans are subject to change. Currently under construction by Strathclyde region is 4·6 km of non-trunk urban motorway—part of the M80 Stepps bypass, which is a joint scheme with the Scottish Office.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Forestry Commission to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Forestry Commission does not keep a separate record of fees paid to consultants. A general search of the relevant files has identified only one occasion when consultants were employed to advise on management questions. That was in 1984, at a cost of £17,000. The commission has no current plans to employ management consultants.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Scottish Development Agency to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise, which succeeded the Scottish Development Agency on 1 April 1991, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the Scottish population is today eligible for(a) legal advice and assistance and (b) civil legal aid; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Pupil Expenditure
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the expenditure per pupil on (i) books and (ii) equipment in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in cash and real terms since 1976.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: Information from 1977, the earliest year for which details are available in the form requested, is given in the tables, which have been compiled from local authority financial returns. Expenditure on equipment was not separately identified in these returns until 1982–83. There have been some variations from year to year in the recording of expenditure under these two headings. It is therefore possible that some expenditure on books may be included under expenditure on equipment and vice versa.

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools equipment and materials at outturn prices

  Books

  Education Tools, Equipment and Materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  1977–78

  3·27

  5·80

  n/a

  n/a

  1978–79

  4·54

  8·31

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  5·49

  9·61

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  5·84

  9·29

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  6·54

  9·77

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  7·03

  10·03

  8·18

  27·33

  289

  Books

  Education Tools, Equipment and Materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  1983–84

  8·99

  3·35

  7·28

  25·36

  1984–85

  9·55

  13·83

  8·91

  30·09

  1985–86

  8·91

  13·47

  8·33

  30·26

  1986–87

  10·93

  16·67

  8·92

  33·85

  1987–88

  9·25

  12·93

  11·71

  44·42

  1988–89

  11·23

  18·56

  13·24

  50·18

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials adjusted to 1989–90 prices using the GDP deflator

  Books

  Education Tools, Equipment and Materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  1977–78

  8·49

  15·06

  n/a

  n/a

  1978–79

  10·63

  19·46

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  11·02

  19·28

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  9·90

  15·75

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  10·11

  15·11

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  10·15

  14·48

  11·81

  39·46

  1983–84

  12·41

  18·42

  10·05

  35·00

  1984–85

  12·54

  18·16

  11·70

  39·52

  1985–86

  11·10

  16·78

  10·38

  37·69

  1986–87

  13·16

  20·07

  10·74

  40·75

  1987–88

  10·57

  14·78

  13·38

  50·77

  1988–89

  11·95

  19·74

  14·08

  53·38

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Overseas Development Administration to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 1 May.

  Food Aid (EC)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's Government's representative opposed the European Commission proposal on the funding of the EC's 400,000 tonnes of food aid for Africa, at the meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives of Member States on 23 April; and if he will make it his policy to end Her Majesty's Government's opposition to the proposal in order to secure a COREPER decision on funding at its meeting on 2 May.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We endorsed during last week's discussions in COREPER the proposal of the EC Commission to make available an extra 400,000 tonnes of EC food aid for the relief of famine in Africa. We proposed that the food aid should be sent to Africa this week and the funding sorted out later. I wrote to Commissioner Marin earlier this week making the same point. I hope that agreement can be reached at COREPER today.

  Kurds
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, on 25 April,Official Report, columns 507–8, if he will list those supplies which were donated to the Overseas Development Administration and give details of the organisations which made such donations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The following relief supplies on aircraft chartered by ODA were donated:

  Supplies

  Donor

  2,500 groundsheets

  Salvation Army Mersey Regional

  120,000 blankets

  Health Authority

  216,000 multivitamin capsules

  Nature Slim UK

  The other supplies on ODA flights were purchased by the ODA from various suppliers, including some non-governmental organisations. The ODA also paid the costs of chartering the Oxfam flight on 22 April, carrying two Land Rovers and drinking water supply equipment. In addition, a further flight has gone to Iran carrying goods donated by the public.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kuwait
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time, GMT and local, the British ambassador to Kuwait first learnt of the invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi forces on 2 August 1990; at what time, GMT and locally, he was aware of the attack on the royal palace; and how far the palace is from his residence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 November 1990, at column 136. At approximately 03.00 GMT, 06.00 Kuwait local time, on 2 August the ambassador became aware of an Iraqi attack on the royal palace, which is less than a quarter of a mile from the ambassador's residence.

  Trilogue Meeting
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on how the 1 billion ecu of new resources for EC external purposes should be allocated by the trilogue meeting on 2 May.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The trilogue on 2 May will discuss proposed revisions to the financial prespectives for both 1991 and 1992. We are participating constructively in the Council perparations for this trilogue. We shall continue to press the need for additional provisions to be fully justified.

  Safe Havens
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy of widening safe havens.
  291
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are continuing with our policy for the establishment of safe havens. Work on the camp at Zakho is well advanced and preparations are being made for further safe havens.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Post
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to ensure that post which arrrives for an hon. Member at the House Post Office is delivered the same say at hon. Members' offices outside the main building.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to look into the matter and he will contact the hon. Member.

DEFENCE

  Recruits (Minimum Age)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum age for recruits for the Royal Marines and RAF; and how long this has been so.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The minimum age for recruitment to the Royal Marines and RAF is as follows:

  Males

  Females

  Royal Marines

  Officers

  17 years 6 months

  —

  Servicemen

  16 years

  —

  Royal Air Force

  Officers

  17 years 6 months

  18 years

  Servicemen

  16 years 6 months

  17 years

  In the time available, it has not been possible to ascertain precisely how long the age limits have been in force. The minimum age for RM service men is believed to have increased to 16 with the raising of the school leaving age in 1972. In the RAF, the current minimum age limits for officers and airwomen have been in place since at least 1967. The minimum recruitment age for airmen has been 16 years 6 months since 1981. Between 1967 and 1980 it varied between 16, 16 years 6 months and 17.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the sites currently being considered for interim disposal of(a) HMS Warspite (b) HMS Churchill and (c) HMS Conqueror;

  (2) what research his Department currently is undertaking into cutting up reactors from decommissioned nuclear fleet submarines in a contained environment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A number of options are currently under consideration for the method and location of the interim storage and eventual disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had with his NATO counterparts regarding the disposal of nuclear fleet submarines after decommissioning.
  292
  Mr. Alan Clark
  There is a regular exchange of information between the United States and United Kingdom Governments under the 1958 mutual defence agreement and we are generally aware of each other's views. The only other NATO member operating nuclear submarines is France, with whom we have held no substantive discussions on the subject.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the independent expert members of the nuclear-powered warship safety committee who have specific expertise in(a) reactor safety and (b) decommissioning of nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The membership of the nuclear-powered warship safety committee is confidential.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he makes it his policy to rule out the disposal of decommissioned nuclear fleet submarines at sea.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A number of options are currently under consideration for the method and location of the interim storage and eventual disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines. But the Government are keeping under review whether the option of disposing of large decommissioned items at sea needs to be maintained.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what joint research with other NATO countries his Department has commissioned in the last 10 years regarding disposal of nuclear fleet submarines.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of all Z-berth sites in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  United Kingdom Z-berths, including buoys and anchorages, are at:

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Barry

  Broadford Bay

  Brodick Bay

  Campbeltown

  Cardiff

  Coulport

  Dales Voe

  Devonport and Plymouth Sound

  Faslane

  The Firth of Forth

  Glen Mallan

  Holy Loch

  Lamlash Bay

  Lerwick

  Liverpool

  Loch Ewe

  Loch Fyne

  Loch Goil

  Loch Long

  Loch Na Beiste

  Loch Striven

  Portland

  Portree

  Portsmouth

  Raasay

  Rosyth

  Rothesay

  Southampton

  Spithead

  Thurso Bay

  Torbay

  In addition, we have decided to establish a Z-berth at Swansea.
  293
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the longest estimated half-life of components inside the reactors of(a) HMS Conqueror, (b) HMS Churchill and (c) HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Components as such do not have half-lives. The term half-life is associated with the radioactive decay of individual isotopes.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum number of decommissioned nuclear fleet submarines which can be laid up at(a) Devonport and (b) Rosyth without taking away berths which would otherwise be used by operational ships at those sites.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There would be sufficient berths at Rosyth and Devonport to store all decommissioned nuclear submarines for the foreseeable future without penalty to operations.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the moratorium of the London dumping convention is binding in respect of disposal of decommissioned nuclear fleet submarines.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the formal decommissioning of HMS Conqueror will now take place.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  HMS Conqueror was formally decommissioned from Royal Navy service on 31 December 1990. The first stage of decommissioning, in the separate sense that the word is applied to radioactive facilities, will begin shortly.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aspects of the material condition of(a) HMS Warspite, (b) HMS Churchill and (c) HMS Conqueror contributed to the decision to decommission them.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not our normal practice to comment on the material state of individual submarines. Whilst the material state of ships and submarines is taken into account when decisions are taken to decommission them, it was not a major factor in the decisions to decommission Warspite, Churchill and Conqueror except in the general sense that they were among the Royal Navy's older and therefore less capable submarines.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration his Department is giving to the potential safety implications of the technical defect discovered in HMS Warspite at the end of 1989 in respect of the options for interim disposal of decommissioned nuclear fleet submarines.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The technical defect discovered in HMS Warspite has no bearing on the options for the decommissioning and disposal of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the existing Z-berth sites are being considered as options for interim disposal of decommissioned nuclear fleet submarines.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Ministry of Defence Land (London)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much land his Department owns in London; and how much of that land is unused.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence currently holds the freehold interest to 1,232 hectares—3,045 acres—in the Greater London area, of which 20 hectares—42 acres—is unused and available for disposal. A further 32 hectares—79 acres—is occupied by the Ministry of Defence on leasehold terms.

  Foxhunter Radar
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Foxhunter radar systems have been delivered to the RAF, and how many of the delivered systems meet the RAF's minimum operational requirement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Of a total of 200 radars on order, 183 have been delivered to the RAF for installation in Tornado F3s, all of which have been cleared for service use.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the Foxhunter radar procurement programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Development of stage 1 of the two-stage improvement programme has now been completed and modification of in-service radars is well under way. Development of stage 2 is expected to be completed this year.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the release of information on the long-term costings of the defence budget.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The 10-year costing of the defence programme—known as the long-term costing—is designed for internal planning purposes. Approval to commit expenditure is subject to separate procedures and endorsement by Ministers as appropriate. To avoid giving a misleading impression as to the firmness of our plans we would not therefore normally provide details of the contents of the long-term costing.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by when it is intended that the results of the "Options for Change" study will be fully implemented.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We intend to move to new force structures by the mid-1990s.

  EH101 Helicopters
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to procure a utility variant of the EH101 helicopter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are considering the results of the project definition phase of the utility EH101. As I explained to the House on 22 January this year, the analysis is taking longer than expected because of the need to take into account the implications of changes in Europe.

  International Arms Register
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given by his Department to the possibility of establishing an international arms register.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated his support for a United Nations arms transfer register. My Department is working with all other interested Departments to further this important initiative. In parallel, my Department has supplied the chairman for a United Nations experts study group which will be reporting shortly to the Secretary General on measures to promote arms transfer transparency including the setting up of an international arms transfer register.

  Ballykelly Army Base
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a file has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland regarding allegations that a fraud ring operated at Ballykelly Army base in recent years during contract work for the Army.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that police inquiries are continuing.

EMPLOYMENT

  Offshore Pipeline Valves
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 193 valves required to be fitted as a result of Offshore Installations (Emergency Pipe-line Valve) Regulations 1989 were fitted as at 31 March.

  Mr. Forth
  As at 31 March 1991, 164 of the total 192 emergency shutdown valves had been fitted or relocated in compliance with the Offshore Installations (Emergency Pipeline Valve) Regulations 1989. Of the 28 valves remaining at 31 March, 25 of them are in the Brent field and all the associated pipelines are shut down pending installation of the valves.

  British Tourist Authority
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total sum paid out in fees by the British Tourist Authority to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  These matters are the responsibility of the board of the British Tourist Authority, and I am asking the chairman to write directly to the hon. Gentleman.

  Ford Car Factory
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will assess the effect on the level of unemployment on Merseyside of the proposed reduction in employment in the Ford car factory.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans to make such an assessment. The company has announced a reduction in staffing of 2,800 at its Halewood plant to be phased in over several years, and to be achieved in the main by natural wastage, early retirement and voluntary redundancy.
  296
  The normal range of services and facilities of the Department and of the employment service will be available to Ford employees who lose their jobs.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the change in income tax in 1991–92 as against the 1978–79 indexed regime, broken down into the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and bottom 50 per cent. of taxpayers showing the total change and the average gain.

  Mr. Maude
  Latest estimates of the annual change in income tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowances, and thresholds are in the table. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1991–92 levels by reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation.

  For the purposes of these calculations, the indexed regime 1978–79 has been applied directly to the income base of 1991–92. In practice, retention of the 1978–79 regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Reductions in income tax per individual1 in 1991–92 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Quantile group of individual taxpayers

  Total reductions 1991–92 prices

  Average reduction at 1991–92 prices

  £ million

  £

  Top 1 per cent.

  8,600

  30,900

  Top 5 per cent.

  12,500

  9,000

  Top 10 per cent.

  15,000

  5,400

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  4,000

  300

  All taxpayers

  28,700

  1,000

  1 Individuals liable to income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  I regret that my reply to a related question on 15 April 1991, at columns 13–14, was incorrect. The corrected table is as follows.

  Average reduction in income tax per individual in 1991–92 compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1991–92

  Average reduction at 1991–92 income levels

  £

  £

  Under 5,000

  130

  5,000–10,000

  350

  10,000–15,000

  650

  15,000–20,000

  950

  20,000–25,000

  1,300

  25,000–30,000

  1,700

  30,000–40,000

  2,400

  40,000–50,000

  3,800

  50,000–60,000

  6,300

  60,000–70,000

  9,800

  over 70,000

  38,600

  Total

  1,000

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 and in a full year of introducing an
  297
  alternative minimum tax of (a) 20 per cent. and (b) 25 per cent. of gross income on all taxpayers with a gross income over (i) £40,000, (ii) £45,000 and (iii) £50,000 a year.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is as follows:

  Additional tax liability arising from introduction of alternative minimum tax on gross income 1991–92

  Rate of minimum tax

  Gross income of individual taxpayer (£)

  20 per cent. £ million

  25 per cent. £ million

  Over 40,000

  40

  225

  Over 45,000

  30

  115

  Over 50,000

  25

  80

  The estimates do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the new arrangements.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 and in a full year of a 1 per cent. cut in the basic rate of income tax; and what would be the cumulative effect after five years of an additional 1 per cent. cut each year, assuming indexation of the current structure of income tax.

  Mr. Maude
  A one penny cut in the basic rate of income tax in 1991–92 would have a direct revenue cost of about £1·9 billion in 1991–92 and £2·0 billion in 1992–93. The cost in a full year at 1991–92 levels of income would also be about £1·9 billion. Costs of changes in later years will depend on the growth of income.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 of introducing higher rate bands of income tax equal to 45 per cent. on taxable incomes from £30,200 to £36,700 and 50 per cent. on taxable incomes over £36,700.

  Increase1 in personal allowances2

  Direct revenue effect (cost(-)/yield(+))

  Receipts in 1991–92

  In a full year at 1991–92 income levels

  Compared with 1990–91 allowances

  Compared with statutory indexation

  Compared with 1990–91 allowances

  Compared with statutory indexation

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  (i) 5 per cent.

  -0·9

  +0·8

  -1·1

  +1·0

  (ii) 10 per cent.

  -1·7

  -0·1

  -2·2

  -0·1

  (iii) 15 per cent.

  -2·5

  -0·9

  -3·2

  -1·2

  1 Percentage increases are based on the 1990–91 levels of allowances.

  2 Excluding married couple's allowance for those aged under 65, additional personal allowance, and widows bereavement allowance.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what items of safety equipment used to prevent accidents both at home arid at work are exempt for VAT; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the items of safety equipment used in work places on which a refund of VAT can be claimed;

  (3) if he has any proposals to introduce VAT exemptions on items of home safety equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The only items of safety equipment specifically zero rated for VAT are supplies of protective boots and helmets to industry for the purchaser's own personal use. VAT on other safety items supplied for use in respect of taxable business activities may be reclaimed in the normal way. It would be contrary
  298
  Mr. Maude
  [Pursuant to his reply, 1 May 1991]: The answer should have read as follows:

  The yield at 1991–92 levels of income of introducing the rates of income tax shown in the table is estimated to be about £1 billion in 1991–92, and about £2 billion in a full year.

  Taxable income

  Rate

  £

  per cent.

  1 to 23,700

  25

  23,700 to 30,200

  40

  30,200 to 36,700

  45

  36,700 and over

  50

  Taxable income is income subject to tax from all sources after deducting allowances and reliefs. The estimate does not take account of the consequential effect on capital gains tax, nor does it allow for any behavioural effects that might result from such an increase.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on tax revenues in 1991–92 and in a full year of (i) a 5 per cent., (ii) a 10 per cent. and (iii) a 15 per cent. increase in the personal allowances and age-related personal allowances for income tax, not including the married couple's, widow's and additional personal allowances, assuming the benefit of the increase is limited to the basic rate of tax.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is given in the table, which assumes that the changes are restricted to the basic rate of income tax:

  to European Community law to extend our current VAT zero-rating provisions. Although member states may retain zero rates which were in force on 31 December 1975, they may neither widen the scope of existing provisions nor introduce new ones.

  Volunteer Drivers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to ensure that no volunteer drivers will be made liable for tax on their mileage during the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  The position in law is that, if drivers for a voluntary car service receive mileage allowances which do no more than reimburse the expenses they have actually incurred, there will be no liability to income tax. But if they receive allowances which exceed their expenses, the profit may be taxable.
  299
  The great majority of drivers cover modest mileages each year and receive modest allowances providing no or minimal profit; and there is no question of taxing these. However, some volunteer drivers receive very significant amounts of allowances. With my approval, the Inland Revenue is considering whether any advice needs to be given to organisations involved with volunteer drivers. Until that review is completed, neither organisations using volunteer drivers nor the drivers themselves will be expected to take any action so far as income tax is concerned, in relation to mileage allowances for voluntary work. Drivers who are in business as taxi, hire car or minibus operators, and do some driving for voluntary car schemes, are regarded as driving in the course of their businesses and should therefore have included any allowances they receive in their business accounts.

  I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about tax liabilities for the year 1991–92. Any new arrangements which may be introduced for what is expected to be the small proportion of drivers who may have a tax liability will be applied only from a current date; and there will be no question of reopening earlier years. I cannot yet say when the Inland Revenue's review will be completed.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Inland Revenue to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Information relating to the financial years 1979–80 to 1987–88 inclusive is not readily available and

  Permanent staff in post: statistics division

  1979–85

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Grade

  SIP

  SIP

  Comp1

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Grade 32

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 52

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Grade 6–72

  17·5

  19·5

  17

  18·5

  17

  17

  17

  15

  17

  17

  17

  17

  SEO

  8

  8

  6

  8

  6

  7

  7

  8

  6

  8

  7

  6

  HEO

  26

  28·5

  29

  29·5

  31

  29

  29

  31

  29

  29

  31

  28·5

  Senior assistant statistician

  3

  3

  7

  3

  7

  4

  7

  3

  7

  2

  7

  2

  EO

  54

  59

  62

  54

  60

  49

  49

  47

  42

  46

  39

  36

  Assistant statistician

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  AO

  95

  91

  65

  73

  44

  45

  37

  38

  29

  35

  27

  27

  AA

  43·5

  42

  29

  37

  19

  21

  17

  18

  13

  12

  13

  11

  Total

  253

  256

  220

  229

  189

  179

  168

  165

  148

  155

  146

  135·5

  1986–91

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Grade

  Comp

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Comp

  SIP

  Grade 32

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 52

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Grade 6–72

  17

  18

  18

  17

  18

  16

  20

  18

  22

  21

  22

  22

  SEO

  7

  6

  8

  8

  8

  8

  10

  9

  10

  10

  11·5

  11

  HEO

  31

  27

  31

  27

  31

  33

  35

  33

  37

  32

  37

  34

  Senior assistant statistician

  7

  2

  8

  3

  8

  3

  8

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  EO

  39

  46

  42

  48

  42

  50

  42

  39

  46

  51

  45·5

  51

  Assistant statistician

  0

  5

  0

  3

  0

  2

  0

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  AO

  26

  26

  26

  23

  26

  27

  26

  27

  28

  26

  26·5

  25

  AA

  14

  13

  14

  13

  14

  14

  14

  13

  14

  13

  14

  11

  Total

  146

  148

  152

  147

  152

  158

  160

  150

  170

  165

  169·5

  166

  300
  cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. The spend on management consultants—excluding computer-related consultancies—for the remaining years is as follows:

  Year

  £K

  1988–89

  1,253

  1989–90

  1,468

  11990–91

  2,741

  21991–92

  1,892

  1 Forecast outturn.

  2 Budget.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Inland Revenue; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: The information is in the table.

  Complements are not available for years before 1981.

  At the senior level of the service, where management forms a major component of most jobs, there are servicewide common pay and grading arrangements. These unified grades 1 to 7 are known as the open structure and cover grades from permanent secretary level to grade 7 level. Within the unified grades there are no formal barriers to movement between the former occupational groups—for example, scientists, administrators, statisticians. Each post should be filled by the person best equipped in terms of skills, ability and experience.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum paid out in fees by HM Customs and Excise to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs and Excise estimates that expenditure on management and computer consultancies from 1979–80 to 1990–91 to be as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  Nil

  1980–81

  Nil

  1981–82

  Nil

  1982–83

  Nil

  1983–84

  0·02

  1984–85

  0·19

  1985–86

  1·34

  1986–87

  2·04

  1987–88

  1·44

  1988–89

  3·53

  1989–90

  3·25

  1990–91

  2·51

  The budget for 1991·92 is £3·86 million.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will place a copy of the valuation office's rating circulars numbers 53 and 58 in the Library;

  (2) if he will publish details of the valuation exercise carried out by the valuation office in preparation for publication of the Government's council tax proposals.

  Mr. Maude
  The Inland Revenue valuation office has been working with other Government Departments to provide policy advice to Ministers in connection with the Government's proposals for a new council tax in the usual way. It is not the practice to disclose the basis or the details of such advice.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of the exercises being undertaken by the valuation office in relation to rating circulars 53 and 58; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The estimated cost of these exercises is about £275,000.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the notes on those clauses of the Finance Bill to be taken in Committee of the whole House will be made available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes. The appropriate notes on clauses were placed in the Vote Office earlier today.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about measures to combat tax avoidance.

  Mr. Maples
  The Government intend to bring forward measures in the current Finance Bill aimed at preventing 302
  the circumvention of the corporation tax ring fence around profits from North Sea oil, by schemes involving the use of stapled stock.

  Section 497 of the Taxes Act 1988 prevents a company from setting off advance corporation tax on distributions made to an associated company against corporation tax on its ring fence profits—broadly the profits from exploring for and producing oil and gas in the United Kingdom and United Kingdom continental shelf. The Government propose to extend this provision to cover distributions made to any shareholder in respect of securities the ownership of which is linked in the form of stapled stock or otherwise to the ownership of shares in an associated company. The proposals will take effect for distributions made on or after today.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Central Office of Information.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: The number of staff employed in the press office of the Central Office of Information, which has always equalled the full complement, on 1 April since 1979–80 is as follows:

  Number

  1979–80

  2

  1980–81

  1

  1981–82

  1

  1982–83

  1

  1983–84

  1

  1984–85

  2

  1985–86

  1

  1986–87

  1

  1987–88

  1

  1988–89

  1

  1989–90

  1

  1990–91

  1

  1991–92

  1

  Research Projects
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the research projects(a) currently under way and (b) planned by his Department, giving the title of the research and its completion date in each case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: Research commissioned by my Department and planned commissions are as follows:

  Project title

  Estimated completion date

  In progress:

  Competitiveness of United Kingdom financial services

  June 1991

  Econometric modelling of labour and products market

  September 1991

  ESRC Macroeconomic Modelling Consortium (contribution)

  Ongoing

  Indirect taxation research

  March 1992

  IT for the disabled

  December 1991

  Valuation of overseas direct investment

  August 1991

  Vintage capital project

  June 1991

  303

  Project title

  Estimated completion date

  Planned:

  Applicability to Government of new accounting techniques and concepts

  March 1992

  Career management

  March 1992

  Effects of the Social Charter

  March 1992

  Employee and potential employee opinion research

  March 1992

  Literature search on performance pay

  March 1992

  HMSO
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in HMSO; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Statistician (Grade 7)

  Senior assistant statistician

  Assistant statistician

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  1 April 1984

  Complement

  1

  1

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Actual

  1

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 April 1985

  Complement

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Actual

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  3

  1

  1 April 1986

  Complement

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Actual

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1 April 1987

  Complement

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Actual

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1 April 1988

  Complement

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Actual

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1 April 1989

  Complement

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Actual

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1 April 1990

  Complement

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Actual

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1 April 1991

  Complement

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Actual

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  n/a = not available.

  Tax Allowance
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing, for the most recent available date, the value in current prices of all tax reliefs and allowances claimed, on average, by taxpayers with gross incomes between(a) £0–£5,000, (b)£5,000–£10,000 (c) £10,000–£15,000, (d) £15,000–£20,000, (e) £20,000–£25,000, (f) £25,000–£30,000, (g) £30,000–40,000, (h) £40,000–£50,000 and (i) over £50,000 a year.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: Latest estimates for taxpayers in 1990–91 are as follows:
  304
  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: HMSO has had no separate statistical divisions or statistical posts from 1979 to the present date.

  National Savings Department (Staff)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions for the Department for National Savings; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: The numbers of staff employed in the statistical branch of the Department for National Savings in the years 1984–91 were as detailed in the table. Figures for the years 1981–83 are no longer available. There were no statistical posts before July 1981.

  Gross Income £ per year

  Amount of tax reliefs and allowances set against income £

  0–5,000

  3,200

  5,000–10,000

  4,200

  10,000–15,000

  5,300

  15,000–20,000

  6,300

  20,000–25,000

  7,000

  25,000–30,000

  7,400

  30,000–40,000

  7,600

  40,000–50,000

  8,400

  over 50,000

  10,800

  Average

  5,200

  Petrol Duties
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 and in a full year of a 1 per cent. increase or decrease in the duties on(a) leaded petrol, (b) unleaded petrol and (c) derv.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: The revenue effects include the effect of consequential VAT on excise duty where appropriate. They are as follows:

  £ million

  Revenue Gain/Loss

  1991–92

  1992–93 (Full year)

  Leaded Petrol

  45

  45

  Unleaded Petrol

  30

  40

  Derv

  20

  25

  There is not yet sufficient evidence on which to base reliable estimates of the amount of switching between leaded and unleaded petrol in response to a tax change. As a result, the figures above do not allow for any additional switching.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast for the cost to the Exchequer in 1991–92 and in a full year of the business expansion scheme.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: The cost of income tax relief for BES in 1990–91 is provisionally estimated as £120 million. It is too early to make a reliable estimate for 1991–92.

TRANSPORT

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider whether earlier and systematic public information on whether a driver killed in a road crash had consumed alcohol would help to maintain awareness of the dangers of drink driving.

  Mr. Chope
  We publish aggregated figures based on coroners' data about drivers who were over the legal limit which show that the number of people killed in drink-related accidents has been reduced by 50 per cent. in the past 10 years. I do not believe it would assist in our continuing campaign against drinking and driving to publish details of whether or not an individual driver killed in a road crash had consumed alcohol.

  Road Drainage
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give an estimate of the increased length of repair-free life of a motorway built using modern drainage techniques as opposed to those constructed using traditional techniques.

  Mr. Chope
  There is no firm evidence to suggest that modern drainage systems are more effective than properly 306
  constructed traditional systems. The main objectives of incorporating modern drainage systems are to separate surface water and sub-surface drainage, improve value for money, reduce the demand for scarce aggregate resources and reduce stone scatter.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the reasons for the reluctance of building contractors to fit modern drainage systems in new road building programmes.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of any reluctance on the part of contractors to fit modern drainage systems, but am willing to look at any examples which the hon. Member can provide.

  Cars (Anti-Theft Measures)
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he will next meet representatives of the motor manufacturing industry to discuss the raising of standards of car design to combat theft of and from cars;

  (2) when he will next meet representatives of the AA, RAC and National Breakdown to discuss ways in which automobiles can be better designed to combat theft of and from cars.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government attach a high priority to the need to improve the design of cars to prevent the theft both of cars themselves and of objects from them.

  For this reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has recently met representatives from vehicle manufacturers and the insurance industry. My Department was represented at both these meetings. Further meetings with interested parties will be arranged in future.

  Urban Motorways
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total mileage of urban motorway in each urban area of England(a) already constructed and in operation, (b) under construction at present and (c) planned for the future.

  Mr. Chope
  Information is not held in this form, but there are 350 miles of motorways in the London boroughs and English metropolitan districts.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has discussed with British Airways, BAA or the Metropolitan police the allegations made by Mrs. Victoria Tregartha about inadequate security cover at Heathrow.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department of Transport has discussed Mrs. Tregartha's allegations with British Airways who had no evidence that the firm, which was the subject of Mrs. Tregartha's allegations, was not carrying out its duties satisfactorily. The Department has also been in contact with the Metropolitan police who are still investigating these allegations. There have been no discussions about the allegations with BAA.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider his response to the recommendation of the House of Commons Select
  307
  Committee on Transport for an independent airport security inspectorate with a separate aviation security fund and levy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to change the present arrangements whereby, within the Department of Transport, the Aviation Security Inspectorate is independent of the aviation policy divisions. That arrangement is in line with the Select Committee's recommendation. The Government's reasons for rejecting the Select Committee's recommendation that an aviation security fund should be established and paid for by a levy on passengers remain valid. The fund which was abolished in 1983 was bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department has taken arising out of the allegations of Mrs. Victoria Tregartha about inadequate security cover by the BA Securiplans company at Heathrow; when the Department was first aware of the allegations; whether it has yet interviewed Mrs. Tregartha; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department first became aware of the allegations made by Mrs. Tregartha when the article appeared in the Observer of 7 April. Arrangements were then immediately made for one of the Department's aviation security inspectors to inspect Securiplan's operations at Heathrow. There was no evidence during the period of the inspection that departmental requirements were not being met.

  The Department has not interviewed Mrs. Tregartha because the Metropolitan police are still investigating the allegations in the article. If it turns out that they are true, the Department will take whatever further action is necessary.

  The Department requires airports and airlines to meet the requirements of the national aviation security programme. If airports and airlines use private security firms, they must ensure that the standards required by the programme are met.

  DVLA Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will quantify the number of disclosures of personal data that have taken place in the last year from driver and vehicle licensing agency records to those people who show reasonable cause as outlined in section 15(1) of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licencing) Regulations 1971; whether he will describe the procedures that he adopts to satisfy himself of the reasonableness of that cause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  During the 12 months ended March 1991 the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has answered 303,618 reasonable cause inquiries about names and addresses of current or past vehicle keepers recorded at DVLA.

  "Reasonable cause" is not defined in law. For the purposes of the 1971 regulations the DVLA generally interprets this to mean an inquiry about a vehicle which has been involved in an incident such as an accident or an offence under the road traffic law and the information is essential to resolving the matter. Requests are carefully vetted to ensure a balance is maintained between releasing
  308
  information where it is justified and protecting the privacy of individual motorists as required under the principles of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is taken to ensure that(a) new taxi driver licence applicants and (b) current taxi driver licence holders have declared any past criminal offences.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Outside London, section 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 requires district councils, which license taxi drivers, to satisfy themselves that an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The majority of councils will require both new applicants and those seeking to renew their licences to declare any past criminal offences, and local authorities sometimes request police corroboration of such declarations. However, information from police records is not generally made available for these purposes.

  Departmental Land, London
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much land his Department owns in London; and how much of that land is unused.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department of Transport owns 220 miles of trunk road in the London area. In addition it has acquired 1,203 dwellings, 103 business premises and approximately 15·5 acres of land in connection with trunk road improvement schemes in the area.

  At present 142 of these dwellings are vacant; 66 are now surplus and are to be sold, 61 are due to be demolished soon and 15 are in the process of being let.

  Twenty of the business premises are vacant and tenants are being sought.

  Of the land acquired for road schemes, 11·5 acres are undeveloped; 2·2 acres have been let and 1·8 acres are now surplus to requirements and are to be sold.

  DVLC, Swansea
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to provide compensation to those driving schools whose business has been adversely affected by the failure of the DVLC, Swansea, to process heavy goods vehicle provisional licence applications within one week;

  (2) how much money will be saved now that the work of the area licensing offices has been transferred to the DVLC, Swansea;

  (3) what steps he is taking to reinforce the heavy goods vehicle provisional licence department at DVLC, Swansea, now that it is handling all the provisional licence applications previously dealt with by the area offices;

  (4) what steps he is taking to ensure that the DVLC, Swansea, provides an equivalent or better service than that previously provided by the area licensing offices; and if he will indicate the number of days it will now take to process a provisional heavy goods vehicle licence application;

  (5) how many additional staff were employed at DVLC, Swansea, to cope with the increased work load once the 11 area licensing offices stopped handling heavy goods vehicle provisional licence applications.

  Mr. Chope
  DVLA assumed full responsibility for the licensing of lorry and bus drivers from 1 April. Around 40
  309
  staff have been trained to deal with applications from lorry and bus drivers, with a further 20 staff in those areas dealing with medical cases and inquiries.

  Because DVLA inherited some 5,000 uncompleted cases from the traffic area offices, 16 additional staff have been temporarily drafted in from other parts of DVLA to help out, and some overtime is being worked. The inquiry unit's opening hours have also been extended.

  The new lorry and bus driver licensing system at DVLA should be more efficient and quicker. The new system is expected to cost around £1 million a year less to run. DVLA is already dealing with most applications in eight to nine working days, which compares well with the target of 10 working days set for the traffic area offices.

  I regret that some cases, which were caught up in the transfer of work from the traffic area offices to DVLA, have taken longer. There is no provision for compensation, but when a driver or driving school has asked for a licence urgently, action has been taken whenever possible to resolve any problem and to arrange for the speedy issue of the licence. Provisional vocational driving licences are given the highest priority at DVLA.

  Airports (Flying Hours)
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the airports in England which have restrictions on flying hours together with the hours during which landing and take-off is permissible.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not have information on flying hour restrictions at all airports in England. Information about the hours during which United Kingdom airports are open is given in such publications as "Pooley's Flight Guide", which is produced annually with the assistance of the Civil Aviation Authority.

AGRICUL'T'URE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Unfit Meat
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library, for each of the last five years, the number of bovine animals that his veterinary officers have found to contain prohibited artificial substances rendering the meat unfit for human consumption; what is the nature of the substances; and what is the number of prosecutions which followed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. The information is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Rodenticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 19 April,Official Report, column 271, if he will list those seven products approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations as rodenticides.

  Mr. Maclean
  The seven products approved for use by professionals as rodenticides are:

  Alphachloralose (pure)

  Alphachloralose 4 per cent. ready mixed

  Klearwell Alphacloralose Bait

  310

  Rentokil Alphachloralose Concentrate

  Rentokil Alphalard

  Rodextron Mouse Bait

  Townex Mouse Poison

  There is a further approved rodenticide containing alphacloralose, Rentokil Alphakil, available for use by non-professional users.

  Veterinary Investigation Centre
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of financial support has been granted to each veterinary investigation centre in England in each year from 1979 onwards; and whether he has any plans to increase the level of financial assistance.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to supply this information at the level requested. The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Emergency Food Stocks
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether all the foodstuffs held in his Ministry's emergency food stocks are fit for human consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 January 1991, at column 545. Food stocks no longer fit for human consumption are removed from the strategic food stockpile.

  Hague Preference
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet a deputation from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the Hague preference.

  Mr. Curry
  We have already had a number of exchanges on this issue with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. We are quite willing to include the items in the agenda in future meetings with the NFFO.

  Livestock
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals for the improvement of the quality of British livestock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The primary impetus for the improvement of the quality of British livestock must come from the marketplace where quality products will receive a premium return if they are marketed effectively.

  The Government encourage quality production directly by aiding specialist beef production through the suckler cow premium scheme currently worth over £71 million per year to the industry. In addition, the Government fund a programme of research and development projects costing over £1 million per year to improve techniques for the selection of breeding stock and for the transmission of desirable genetic characteristics from one generation to the next.

  Fish Imports
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries have exported fish to the United Kingdom since 1974; and how much these exports are as a proportion of all United Kingdom fish imports.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: The table shows, for the years 1985 to 1990, the main countries

  United Kingdom imports of fish and fish products (tonnes)

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Number

  Per cent, of total

  Number

  Per cent, of total

  Number

  Per cent, of total

  Number

  Per cent, of total

  Number

  Per cent, of total

  Number

  Per cent, of total

  Total trade of which:

  384,925

  100

  415,448

  100

  419,490

  100

  440,805

  100

  482,623

  100

  497,353

  100

  Netherlands

  26,572

  6·90

  21,889

  5·27

  17,548

  4·18

  17,388

  3·94

  20,155

  4·18

  18,283

  3·68

  FR of Germany

  9,148

  2·38

  6,776

  1·63

  7,118

  1·70

  7,042

  1·60

  12,899

  2·67

  10,952

  2·20

  Irish Republic

  32,050

  8·33

  30,482

  7·34

  42,907

  10·23

  39,105

  8·87

  25,049

  5·19

  27,289

  5·49

  Denmark

  55,366

  14·38

  53,923

  12·98

  50,412

  12·02

  54,530

  12·37

  62,491

  12·95

  53,052

  10·67

  Portugal

  5,911

  1·54

  5,339

  1·29

  3,849

  0·92

  5,484

  1·24

  16,952

  3·51

  16,078

  3·23

  Iceland

  73,885

  19·19

  93,584

  22·53

  94,608

  22·55

  101,504

  23·03

  98,028

  20·31

  115,022

  23·13

  Faroe Islands

  10,792

  2·80

  9,543

  2·30

  7,623

  1·82

  9,652

  2·19

  11,587

  2·40

  14,047

  2·82

  Norway

  46,960

  12·20

  43,349

  10·43

  41,831

  9·97

  43,488

  9·87

  42,391

  8·78

  34,818

  7·00

  Thailand

  8,521

  2·21

  24,394

  5·87

  28,004

  6·68

  36,327

  8·24

  45,831

  9·50

  37,442

  7·53

  Japan

  11,143

  2·89

  6,960

  1·68

  4,247

  1·01

  2,199

  0·50

  4,770

  0·99

  3,657

  0·74

  Canada

  19,814

  5·15

  22,234

  5·35

  22,821

  5·44

  16,883

  3·83

  18,555

  3·84

  26,919

  5·41

  USA

  17,049

  4·43

  20,038

  4·82

  16,255

  3·87

  16,947

  3·84

  15,467

  3·20

  23,986

  4·82

  Source:Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Education Authority (Finances)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing(a) the capital bid for 1990–91 and (b) the capital allocation for 1990–91 for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Fallon
  Details of local authority plans and education annual capital guidelines for 1990–91 are set out below, together with bids and allocations for voluntary aided and special agreement schools.

  Education annual capital guidelines and LEA plans for 1990–91

  LEA

  Total plans £000s 1990–91

  Total ACG £000s 1990–91

  Barking

  1,415

  485

  Barnet

  4,484

  888

  Bexley

  4,892

  1,242

  Brent

  6,332

  687

  Bromley

  6,612

  1,684

  Croydon

  19,319

  1,061

  Ealing

  14,683

  889

  Enfield

  30,222

  1,315

  Haringey

  5,245

  1,132

  Harrow

  3,345

  1,073

  Havering

  8,589

  5,881

  Hillingdon

  7,692

  1,140

  Hounslow

  7,000

  539

  Kingston

  4,475

  268

  Merton

  11,257

  3,608

  Newham

  16,733

  6,461

  Redbridge

  5,787

  1,577

  Richmond

  7,290

  1,490

  Sutton

  14,161

  2,974

  Waltham

  11,771

  6,661

  City

  0

  0

  Camden

  5,369

  1,421

  Westminster

  5,613

  465

  Greenwich

  10,823

  3,849

  Hackney

  9,218

  2,690

  312
  exporting fish and products to the United Kingdom, the quantities involved in tonnes, and the percentage shares. Countries exporting less than 10,000 tonnes in each of the years are not listed, though those appearing accounted for some 80 per cent. of the total trade in the years shown. Comparable data for the years before 1985 are not readily available.

  LEA

  Total plans £000s 1990–91

  Tolal ACG £000s 1990–91

  Hammersmith

  3,662

  1,047

  Islington

  8,670

  1,079

  Kensington

  9,172

  2,145

  Lambeth

  4,858

  1,480

  Lewisham

  8,762

  1,382

  Southwark

  17,740

  5,429

  Wandsworth

  17,305

  1,677

  Tower Hamlets

  33,246

  17,629

  Birmingham

  15,407

  10,494

  Coventry

  12,758

  2,429

  Dudley

  6,308

  5,083

  Sandwell

  8,493

  1,647

  Solihull

  6,365

  1,561

  Walsall

  4,911

  1,369

  Wolverhampton

  3,353

  936

  Knowsley

  6,594

  2,080

  Liverpool

  16,861

  9,742

  St. Helens

  6,610

  5,066

  Sefton

  7,111

  4,176

  Wirral

  7,099

  3,354

  Bolton

  5,619

  802

  Bury

  1,476

  815

  Manchester

  29,168

  4,397

  Oldham

  7,707

  5,942

  Rochdale

  12,529

  4,278

  Salford

  6,461

  3,961

  Stockport

  3,385

  1,500

  Tameside

  2,438

  1,470

  Trafford

  11,268

  9,448

  Wigan

  7,748

  4,378

  Barnsley

  2,276

  1,933

  Doncaster

  1,269

  860

  Rotherham

  3,712

  1,589

  Sheffield

  6,068

  2,828

  Bradford

  28,814

  9,731

  Calderdale

  2,845

  1,514

  Kirklees

  6,876

  1,216

  Leeds

  15,768

  3,546

  Wakefield

  6,860

  5,394

  Gateshead

  8,776

  1,345

  Newcastle

  8,438

  1,564

  North Tyneside

  5,138

  1,895

  South Tyneside

  10,019

  1,894

  313

  LEA

  Total plans £000s 1990–91

  Total ACG £000s 1990–91

  Sunderland

  10,205

  3,183

  Isle's of Scilly

  300

  221

  Avon

  20,049

  5,653

  Bedfordshire

  12,767

  2,409

  Berkshire

  15,932

  4,500

  Buckinghamshire

  14,902

  6,444

  Cambridge

  34,854

  13,229

  Cheshire

  15,935

  5,814

  Cleveland

  7,761

  4,929

  Cornwall

  18,786

  6,522

  Cumbria

  13,051

  7,930

  Derbyshire

  26,701

  14,743

  Devon

  28,679

  12,984

  Dorset

  11,414

  3,853

  Durham

  19,564

  4,924

  East Sussex

  23,967

  8,773

  Essex

  42,364

  14,063

  Gloucester

  18,734

  7,917

  Hampshire

  37,095

  13,325

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,740

  6,248

  Hertford

  16,526

  6,526

  Humberside

  17,795

  9,004

  Isle of Wight

  6,275

  1,912

  Kent

  33,849

  16,370

  Lancashire

  36,022

  18,524

  Leicester

  16,794

  11,154

  Lincoln

  23,274

  7,387

  Norfolk

  10,044

  3,040

  North Yorkshire

  7,735

  4,105

  Northampton

  10,076

  6,182

  Northumberland

  5,601

  2,382

  Nottinghamshire

  12,952

  3,716

  Oxfordshire

  15,443

  3,751

  Shropshire

  10,272

  6,319

  Somerset

  13,498

  5,563

  Staffordshire

  16,421

  6,375

  Suffolk

  15,754

  7,921

  Surrey

  11,805

  4,128

  Warwick

  6,355

  1,507

  West Sussex

  12,754

  3,633

  Wiltshire

  19,214

  6,256

  Notes:

  1 All figures are in £000s in cash terms.

  2 All figures include initial allocations and Supplementory Credit Approvals (SCA) issued in the course of the year.

  Bids and allocations for capital expenditure by governors of voluntary aided and special agreement schools for 1990–91

  Submitted bids

  Allocations

  LEA

  £000s

  £000s

  Barking

  1,940

  1,940

  Barnet

  1,504

  912

  Bexley

  1,868

  437

  Brent

  883

  394

  Bromley

  200

  80

  Croydon

  1,101

  1,066

  Ealing

  257

  93

  Enfield

  846

  344

  Haringey

  2,790

  2,336

  Harrow

  208

  0

  Havering

  357

  357

  Hillingdon

  1,063

  232

  Hounslow

  327

  0

  Kingston

  390

  26

  Merton

  674

  449

  Newham

  305

  0

  Redbridge

  401

  314

  Richmond

  1,403

  505

  Sutton

  842

  612

  Waltham

  100

  0

  City

  0

  0

  Camden

  1,706

  1,097

  Westminister

  311

  110

  314

  Submitted bids

  Allocations

  LEA

  £000s

  £000s

  Greenwich

  324

  0

  Hackney

  432

  71

  Hammersmith

  661

  452

  Islington

  123

  38

  Kensington

  5,462

  4,775

  Lambeth

  946

  411

  Lewisham

  412

  52

  Southwark

  1,814

  1,186

  Wandsworth

  131

  26

  Tower Hamlets

  702

  632

  Birmingham

  1,527

  1,172

  Coventry

  1,206

  453

  Dudley

  1,005

  632

  Sandwell

  752

  176

  Solihull

  1,441

  1,191

  Walsall

  193

  50

  Wolverhampton

  20

  0

  Knowsley

  724

  169

  Liverpool

  5,897

  4,487

  St. Helens

  638

  128

  Sefton

  2,272

  1,527

  Wirral

  352

  304

  Bolton

  965

  137

  Bury

  1,008

  641

  Manchester

  1,434

  744

  Oldham

  957

  184

  Rochdale

  1,492

  669

  Salford

  540

  327

  Stockport

  573

  472

  Tameside

  103

  20

  Trafford

  551

  292

  Wigan

  1,605

  699

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  345

  215

  Rotherham

  170

  0

  Sheffield

  678

  120

  Bradford

  1,374

  1,150

  Calderdale

  426

  204

  Kirklees

  313

  144

  Leeds

  9,379

  7,107

  Wakefield

  451

  145

  Gateshead

  203

  57

  Newcastle

  941

  597

  North Tyneside

  1,017

  835

  South Tyneside

  145

  51

  Sunderland

  230

  6

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Avon

  3,174

  2,311

  Bedfordshire

  175

  15

  Berkshire

  1,134

  438

  Bucks

  2,661

  763

  Cambridge

  1,450

  58

  Cheshire

  3,454

  1,736

  Cleveland

  723

  0

  Cornwall

  1,487

  1,201

  Cumbria

  1,313

  654

  Derbyshire

  1,847

  1,132

  Devon

  1,019

  465

  Dorset

  6,795

  4,847

  Durham

  760

  277

  East Sussex

  2,492

  1,725

  Essex

  653

  529

  Gloucester

  3,610

  923

  Hampshire

  4,115

  3,664

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,771

  1,081

  Hertford

  970

  202

  Humberside

  927

  508

  Isle of Wight

  87

  87

  Kent

  3,351

  2,756

  Lancashire

  11,748

  4,970

  Leicester

  833

  459

  Lincoln

  911

  125

  Norfolk

  1,074

  184

  North Yorkshire

  913

  69

  Northampton

  309

  0

  Northumberland

  556

  194

  Notts

  2,186

  1,036

  315

  Submitted bids

  Allocations

  LEA

  £000s

  £000s

  Oxfordshire

  2,911

  1,920

  Shropshire

  496

  120

  Somerset

  1,749

  1,562

  Staffs

  1,499

  1,068

  Suffolk

  425

  256

  Surrey

  2,021

  819

  Warwick

  2,043

  1,097

  West Sussex

  3,239

  2,527

  Wiltshire

  1,026

  767

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Local education authority

  Budgeted expenditure on education

  Education standard spending assessment

  Inner London education grant1

  £m

  £m

  £m

  City of London

  3·419

  0·824

  0·210

  Camden

  58·548

  52·762

  6·781

  Greenwich

  100·792

  82·257

  11·345

  Hackney

  100·189

  91·828

  6·523

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  56·10

  45·602

  6·812

  Islington

  77·262

  64·211

  7·841

  Kensington and Chelsea

  40·437

  29·783

  3·694

  Lambeth

  n.a.

  105·484

  9·475

  Lewisham

  97·766

  86·010

  10·565

  Southwark

  94·457

  85·168

  9·480

  Tower Hamlets

  102·740

  91·292

  9·102

  Wandsworth

  111·839

  84·149

  10·974

  Westminster

  75·208

  44·456

  7·198

  Barking and Dagenham

  55·159

  48·338

  —

  Barnet

  87·401

  88·054

  —

  Bexley

  68·961

  67·800

  —

  Brent

  94·655

  108·138

  —

  Bromley

  80·827

  79·378

  —

  Croydon

  110·736

  102·781

  —

  Ealing

  103·709

  100·586

  —

  Enfield

  92·865

  88·524

  —

  Haringey

  n.a.

  79·308

  —

  Harrow

  66·381

  65·387

  —

  Havering

  78·109

  71·015

  —

  Hillingdom

  76·904

  69·110

  —

  Hounslow

  75·420

  68·774

  —

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  42·769

  36·275

  —

  Merton

  51·652

  47·164

  —

  Newham

  94·770

  98·510

  —

  Redbridge

  67·729

  71·225

  —

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  42·581

  35·997

  —

  Sutton

  54·087

  47·633

  —

  Waltham Forest

  85·671

  81·744

  —

  Bolton

  88·646

  87·298

  —

  Bury

  59·888

  51·895

  —

  Manchester

  168·338

  163·642

  —

  Oldham

  78·665

  76·526

  —

  Rochdale

  74·362

  71·852

  —

  Salford

  78·842

  71·245

  —

  Stockport

  89·917

  81·829

  —

  Tameside

  70·678

  69·741

  —

  Trafford

  65·837

  64·046

  —

  Wigan

  108·976

  95·977

  —

  Knowsley

  64·282

  64·361

  —

  Liverpool

  178·294

  177·391

  —

  St. Helens

  67·267

  60·740

  —

  Sefton

  92·415

  87·681

  —

  Wirral

  110·738

  112·387

  —

  Barnsley

  66·229

  66·121

  —

  Doncaster

  103·921

  96·030

  —

  Rotherham

  90·187

  82·575

  —

  Sheffield

  169·837

  148·560

  —

  Gateshead

  68·542

  58·160

  —

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  93·963

  82·930

  —

  North Tyneside

  64·480

  58·226

  —

  South Tyneside

  55710

  49·543

  —

  Sunderland

  99·941

  98·289

  —

  316
  Notes:

  1. All figures are in £000s in cash terms.

  2. Allocations allow governors to complete work up to the limit set.

  3. The Secretary of State pays grant aid at the rate of 85 per cent.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing(a) the revenue budget for 1990–91 and (b) the standard spending assessment for 1990–91 for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested is given in the table below, together with the amounts of inner London education grants for the relevant authorities.
  317

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Local education authority

  Budgeted expenditure on education

  Education standard spending assessment

  Inner London education grant1

  £m

  £m

  £m

  Birmingham

  352·808

  399·449

  —

  Coventry

  111·908

  102·007

  —

  Dudley

  94·456

  89·474

  —

  Sandwell

  118·953

  104·460

  —

  Solihull

  63·314

  60·504

  —

  Walsall

  98·685

  90·329

  —

  Wolverhampton

  94·992

  94·320

  —

  Bradford

  174·669

  179·653

  —

  Calderdale

  66·947

  63·530

  —

  Kirklees

  137·344

  128·823

  —

  Leeds

  231·235

  211·450

  —

  Wakefield

  102·228

  91·139

  —

  Avon

  303·570

  254·787

  —

  Bedfordshire

  184·802

  175·531

  —

  Berkshire

  225·469

  229·252

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  214·468

  206·348

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  202·693

  193·391

  —

  Cheshire

  318·739

  294·559

  —

  Cleveland

  214·430

  202·966

  —

  Cornwall

  138·336

  140·824

  —

  Cumbria

  159102

  142·882

  —

  Derbyshire

  326·789

  271·798

  —

  Devon

  290·463

  276·355

  —

  Dorset

  169·468

  157·560

  —

  Durham

  199·467

  183·819

  —

  East Sussex

  176·212

  168·819

  —

  Essex

  472·463

  458·657

  —

  Gloucestershire

  163·654

  148·565

  —

  Hampshire

  461·580

  453·266

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  197·342

  196·842

  —

  Hertfordshire

  320·460

  293·468

  —

  Humberside

  296·792

  277·145

  —

  Isle of Wight

  38·047

  36·532

  —

  Kent

  434·043

  456·635

  —

  Lancashire

  467·334

  445·622

  —

  Leicestershire

  305·248

  276·819

  —

  Lincolnshire

  177·303

  179·312

  —

  Norfolk

  212·391

  209·872

  —

  Northamptonshire

  190·199

  179·549

  —

  Northumberland

  100·350

  89·824

  —

  North Yorkshire

  211·188

  196·440

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  338·799

  311·592

  —

  Oxfordshire

  169·252

  151·459

  —

  Shropshire

  138·087

  128·216

  —

  Somerset

  146·238

  128·613

  —

  Staffordshire

  321·768

  302·935

  —

  Suffolk

  188·230

  172·628

  —

  Surrey

  266·984

  257·425

  —

  Warwickshire

  151·144

  142·196

  —

  West Sussex

  181·805

  183·940

  —

  Wiltshire

  174·677

  163·364

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  1·126

  0·946

  —

  1 Inner London education grants are paid to provide, through the support of expenditure on education, transitional help to charge-payers in Inner London boroughs and in the City of London where the authorities inherited responsibility for the education service from the Inner London Education Authority.—

  Note:—

  Information on budgeted expenditure is taken from local authorities' returns to the Department of the Environment on forms RA90/91 and RA(SG)90/91. Figures have been repriced to out-turn.—

  Research Councils (Expenditure)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money, and what percentage of total resources, was spent in the last year for which figures are available by each of the research councils on (a) research into management development,(b) management training and (c) training overall,
  318
  excluding the employment costs of the trainees; and how the training expenditure is divided between courses provided internally and those provided externally.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The details are as follows:

  (a) Research into management development

  In 1990–91 the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) made 15 awards totalling £419,000 for research projects into various aspects of management development. This represented 5 per cent. of the total of research grants made in that year.
  319
  (b) Management training

  In 1990–91, the ESRC was supporting 359 students on courses relating to management training at a cost of £1,443,000. This represented some 15 per cent. of the total ESRC expenditure on postgraduate awards.

  Expenditure by the research councils on management training of their own staff was as follows:

  Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC)

  In 1990–91 the AFRC spent £70,313 on management training, £60,000 internally and £10,313 on external management courses.

  Economic and Social Research Council

  In 1990–91 the ESRC spent some £7,000 on management training, of which £700 was spent externally.

  Medical Research Council (MRC)

  This information (and also at (c) below) is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

  In 1990–91 NERC spent £260,000 on management training, of which £140,000 was spent internally.

  Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC)

  For the period 1 August 1989 to 31 July 1990, SERC spent £193,000 on management training, all of which was undertaken by the research council's joint training service (JTS).

  (c) Training overall

  AFRC's total expenditure on staff training in 1990–91 was £270,133, of which £150,000 was undertaken internally or through the JTS. The total of science budget resources devoted to training was about 0·3 per cent.

  ESRC's total expenditure on staff training in 1990–91 was £32,100 of which £23,000 was undertaken by JTS. This total represents about 0·1 per cent. of the council's resources from the science budget.

  NERC's total expenditure on staff training in 1990–91 was £650,000, of which £220,000 was undertaken internally or by JTS. Total expenditure represented 0·37 per cent. of the council's resources from the science budget.

  In the period 1 August 1989 to 31 July 1990, SERC estimates that its total expenditure on staff training amounted to about £707,000. Of this some £420,000 was

  HMI visits to grant-maintained schools made between September 1989 and March 1991

  Visit

  Number of visits

  Total number of HMI involved in visits

  Length of each visit (days)

  Cost (£)

  Hendon

  2

  4

  1

  960

  Queen Elizabeth's Barnet

  2

  5

  1

  1,200

  Queensbury

  3

  8

  1, 4

  5,040

  Baverstock

  3

  9

  1, 2, 4

  6,480

  Small Heath

  3

  8

  1

  1,440

  St. James

  6

  6

  1

  1,440

  Colyton Grammar

  3

  3

  1

  720

  Old Swinford Hospital

  3

  4

  1

  960

  London Oratory

  4

  4

  1

  960

  Wilmington GS for Girls

  3

  4

  1

  960

  Castle Hall

  3

  3

  1

  960

  Heckmondwike GS

  4

  6

  0·5, 1, 1, 2

  2,280

  Bacup and Rawtenstall

  2

  4

  1

  960

  King's, Grantham

  3

  5

  1

  1,200

  Queen Elizabeth's GS

  3

  4

  1

  960

  Skegness GS

  2

  3

  1

  960

  Wilson's

  2

  2

  0·5, 1

  600

  Audenshaw

  3

  3

  1

  720

  Bankfield

  2

  7

  1, 4

  5,280

  St. Francis Xavier

  2

  3

  1

  720

  Beechen Cliff

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Southlands

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Claremont

  2

  2

  1, 2

  720

  Netherthorpe

  1

  2

  0·5

  240

  Ribston Hall

  1

  1

  1

  240

  London Nautical

  1

  3

  2

  1,440

  Cardinal Vaughan

  2

  5

  1

  1,200

  Lancaster RGS

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Southfield

  2

  3

  1

  720

  Bridgewater Hall

  1

  1

  1

  240

  320
  estimated to have been spent internally. The total training expenditure represents some 0·17 per cent. of the science budget resources made available to SERC.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the cost so far of ballots of parents held under section 61 of the Education Act.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Electoral Reform Society conducts all parental ballots for grant-maintained status and claims its costs for each individual ballot from the Department of Education and Science. The total of these costs currently stands at some £175,000.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91, what have been the total levels of (i) liability for VAT, (ii) relief from liability for rates and (iii) special purpose grant (VAT) for grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of grant-maintained schools' actual liability for VAT are not available. The total level of newly acquired rates relief for ex-county schools was some £141,000 in 1989–90 and some £1,103,000 in 1990–91. Total special purpose grant (VAT) paid to grant-maintained schools was £231,000 in 1989–90 and £639,000 in 1990–91.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which grant-maintained schools have been visited by Her Majesty's inspectors, and in each case (i) by how many inspectors, (ii) for how long, (iii) at what cost and (iv) whether a report will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the end of March 1991, there were 50 schools operating under grant-maintained status and HMI had visited 46 of them. Listed below are details of the visits made to each school.
  321

  Visit

  Number of visits

  Total number of HMI involved in visits

  Length of each visit (days)

  Cost (£)

  Brindley Hall

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Ecclesbourne

  1

  2

  1

  480

  Bournemouth GS

  2

  3

  1

  720

  Stroud High

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Marling

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Pate's GS

  1

  2

  1

  480

  Rickmansworth

  1

  2

  1

  480

  Bishopshalt

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Long Field High

  2

  2

  1, 2

  720

  Carre's GS

  1

  3

  1

  720

  Adams GS

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Guildford

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Wolverhampton High

  1

  1

  2

  480

  Handsworth GS

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Buller's Wood

  1

  1

  1

  240

  Francis Bacon

  1

  2

  1

  480

  In all cases the inspectors' findings were reported orally to the head and to the chairman of governors where he or she was able to attend. None of these inspections was planned to lead to a published report. My right hon. and learned Friend will therefore not be publishing the findings of these individual school inspectors.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the total full-year cost of grant payable to schools as (i) transitional grant, (ii) special purpose grant (development) and (iii) capital grant if all eligible schools became grant-maintained at the current levels of each(a) during 1991–92 and (b) over a five-year period.

  Mr. Eggar
  Given the statutory timetable it is not possible for all schools to become grant-maintained in the financial year 1991–92.

  These levels of payment are reviewed annually in the light of the Government's spending priorities for

  Publication

  Total printing cost (all editions)

  Number of copies distributed

  Postage costs

  £000

  (all editions)1

  £000

  School Governors: How to become a grant-maintained school

  46·9

  80,000

  2n/a

  Grant-maintained schools: Questions parents ask

  51·6

  140,000

  3n/a

  Grant-maintained schools: What it means for staff

  9·8

  100,000

  14·0

  1 The recorded figures are for initial block distributions. Figures for further distributions to individual schools following ad hoc requests are not available.

  2 Postage costs for the block distribution of the first edition were not recorded separately. It cost £870 to post an initial block distribution of the second edition. The third edition has not been block distributed as yet.

  3 It cost £3,700 to post an initial block distribution of the first edition. It cost £8,400 to post a further block distribution of that edition for primary schools with less than 300 pupils when they became eligible for grant-maintained status. Included in that distribution were copies of the second edition of "School Governors: How to Become a Grant-Maintained School".

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92, what have been the average total allocations of capital grant to grant-maintained schools(i) per school and (ii) per pupil.

  Mr. Eggar
  Total grant for capital expenditure by grant-maintained schools in 1990–91 was £6·5 million. The planned grant expenditure for 1991–92 is £10·5 million. The average per school for 1990–91 was £130,186 and per pupil £181 based on total school and pupil numbers in that year. Figures for 1991–92 will depend upon the total number of schools and pupils in the sector this year.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91, what was(i) the amount available and (ii) the amount paid to grant-maintained schools as special purpose grant (development).
  322
  education and other services. It is therefore not possible to project a figure for the total cost if all schools became grant-maintained over a five-year period.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies have been distributed and, in each case, at what cost of all the editions of the booklet (i) "School Governors—How to Become a Grant-Maintained School", (ii) "Grant-Maintained Schools—Questions Parents Ask" and (iii) "Grant-Maintained Schools—What it Means For Staff".

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

  Mr. Eggar
  Special purpose grant (development) of £177,573 was available to grant-maintained schools in 1989–90. The amount actually paid in that year was £171,190. In 1990–91, special purpose grant (development) of £705,126 was available. This amount will be adjusted during the course of the current financial year if financial returns from schools show that the full amount of grant was not required for the purposes for which it has been made available.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what payments have been made from public funds to the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust in each year since its creation.

  Mr. Eggar
  Payments of central Government grant in each financial year have been as follows:
  323

  £

  1988–89

  25,000

  1989–90

  250,000

  1990–91

  448,000

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91, what has been(a) the total and (b) the average per pupil of (i) annual maintenance grant and (ii) all other grant aid paid to grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  Total annual maintenance grant—AMG—paid was £14·9 million in 1989–90 and £59·2 million in 1990–91. A simple average per pupil can be derived by dividing these figures by pupil numbers recorded in the previous January by all schools that were grant-maintained in that year. On this basis, average AMG paid per pupil was £1,083 in 1989–90 and £1,645 in 1990–91. These figures take no account of the fact that some schools were incorporated as grant-maintained at different times during the year in question.

  The total of other grants paid was £2,466,000 in 1989–90 and £8,128,000 in 1990–91. These figures exclude transitional grant which in these years was paid to schools before incorporation as GM schools. It makes little sense to relate the totals of other grants to pupil numbers since these grants are paid on a number of different bases. However, these totals divided by the same pupil numbers produce per pupil figures of £179 in 1989–90 and £226 in 1990–91.

  Schools Branch 4
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many staff are employed in schools branch 4, division B at his Department; and what is the annual cost of running this Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are 26 staff employed in schools 4 division B. The cost of running this division in the 1990–91 financial year was approximately £368,000.

  Teachers (Assessment)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to accredit prior learning among staff currently employed as teachers; and if he will ensure that teachers who have not had their skills assessed will not be made redundant on grounds of lack of qualification until an assessment has been made.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is for the LEA or, in a school with a delegated budget, the governing body to determine whether any teacher should be dismissed. If it behaves unreasonably, a dismissal may be found unfair by an industrial tribunal. LEAs and schools are responsible for deciding what induction and other training should be provided for the individual teachers whom they employ. They also share responsibility with other bodies that provide or accredit training for deciding on the scope for accrediting teachers' prior learning.

  Children (Assessment)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science of those children subject to assessment at seven years as part of the national curriculum(a) how many are in mixed age classes and (b) how many are in classes of over 30 in size.
  324
  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the number of seven-year-old children in mixed age classes and in classes of over 30 in size is not collected regularly. In January 1990, 24 per cent. of all pupils in maintained primary schools in England were in classes of over 30 taught by one teacher.

  Further Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his statement on the future of further education 21 March,Official Report, columns 432–448, whether local' authorities will be required to seek his consent for contracts exposed to competitive tendering arrangements under the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The application of compulsory competitive tendering to contracts affecting further education and sixth form colleges remains that described in DES circulars 7/88 and 9/88, copies of which are in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Whaling
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister what action the British Government intend to take at the International Whaling Commission this year to ensure that the moratorium on commercial whaling is maintained.

  The Prime Minister
  We shall continue to support the moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Promis Software
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments have purchased Promis software.

  The Prime Minister
  Departments have delegated authority from the Treasury to purchase proprietary software packages to meet their own needs. Information on such procurements is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 2 May.

  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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  International Arms Register
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had regarding the establishment of an international arms register.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 April to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at column 32.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magistrates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of all magistrates are women; what percentage of magistrates appointed in each of the past 10 years have been women; what percentage of women magistrates are under the age of 40 years; what is the average age of magistrates; what is the average age of all women magistrates; and if he has any proposals to appoint more(a) women magistrates and (b) women magistrates under 40 years.

  The Solicitor-General
  As at January 1991, in the Lord Chancellor's area of responsibility, women represented 45 per cent. of the total number of active lay magistrates. The percentage of women magistrates appointed in each of the past 10 years, rounded to the nearest point was as follows:

  Per cent.

  1981

  42

  1982

  43

  1983

  45

  1984

  48

  1985

  44

  1986

  46

  1987

  51

  1988

  48

  1989

  49

  1990

  51

  Approximately 4 per cent. of women magistrates are under the age of 40.

  The average age of magistrates and the average age of all women magistrates, could only be ascertained at disproportionate cost.

  The answer to whether there are any proposals to appoint more (a) women magistrates and (b) women magistrates under 40 years is yes.

  Legal Profession (Remuneration)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Attorney-General if the review by the Lord Chancellor of the legal aid system in the United Kingdom will consider means to harmonise levels of remuneration payable to the legal profession, and to remove existing anomalies between rates of remuneration paid to legal advisers, north and south of the Scottish border.

  The Attorney-General
  The current review is addressing the financial conditions for the grant of legal aid. It is not considering the levels of remuneration payable to the legal profession.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the policy of the Government towards reducing the number of persons eligible for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government's policy is to target legal aid to meet need. The Lord Chancellor is conducting a review of the financial conditions for legal aid to see how this can best be achieved.

  The number of full civil legal aid certificates issued compared with figures for five and 10 years ago indicates that more people than ever before are taking up legal aid. The figures are in the table:
  326

  Number

  1979–80

  190,677

  1984–85

  221,209

  1989–90

  262,581

  The estimated figure for 1990–91 is about 300,000. Over the same period, expenditure on legal aid as a whole increased some five fold.

  Court of Protection
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the cost to the Exchequer of the Court of Protection; and what is its fee income.

  The Attorney-General
  The operation of the Court of Protection is financed by those who use it. During the financial year ending 31 March 1991 there was no cost to the public purse.

  The fee income for that year was £7,750,423·01.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many patients the Court of Protection is currently handling.

  The Attorney-General
  The total number of patients whose affairs are currently being administered by the Court of Protection is 30,842 as at 30 April 1991.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Armagh Four
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress there has been in the review of the convictions of the Armagh Four; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mawhinney
  A dossier on this case is receiving detailed examination. In the meantime, the Chief Constable of the RUC has been asked to make further inquiries about a number of points. Until the results of these further inquiries are known, it will not be possible for my right hon. Friend to consider whether he would be justified in referring the case back to the Court of Appeal.

  Religious Tolerance
  Mr. Falnnery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to hold a representative delegate conference to raise issues conducive to religious tolerance and peace in Ireland.

  Mr. Mawhinney
  I have no plans at present to hold such a conference. I am pleased to report, however, that the Government have given substantial support to a number of conferences, including a major conference in September 1990, on the role of the churches in community relations in Northern Ireland.

  Political Parties (Talks)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on who will be representing the Conservative party at the talks on the future of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will represent the Government in the forthcoming talks.

  Political Devolution
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the subject of political devolution in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the prospects for a political solution to resolve conflict in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

  Recession
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to deal with recession in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The latest economic indicators suggest that any downturn in the economy has had less effect in Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government's economic development strategy for Northern Ireland aims to improve the competitiveness of Northern Ireland industry and thereby promote economic growth and a sustained increase in employment.

  Irish Prime Minister
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no present plans to meet the Taoiseach.

  Self-Employed People
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently self-employed in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  At June 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 75,800 self-employed persons in Northern Ireland. This represents a growth in self-employment of some 16,600–28 per cent.—since June 1983.

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the composition of the non-executive directors of the four area health and social services boards and the membership of the new health and social services councils.

  Mr. Hanley
  Each health and social services board includes six non-executive members plus a chairman. They were appointed from 1 April this year.

  The names of the chairmen of the health and social services councils were announced on 4 April 1991. Nominations for membership of the councils have been invited from district councils, voluntary and community groups and, through public advertisement, from other interested groups and individuals. It is hoped to announce the names of the members shortly.

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to review teachers' pay and conditions bargaining arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At present my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General has no plans to review the teachers' pay and conditions of service negotiating arrangements. Following the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Teachers' Salaries and Conditions of Service Committee, the Department of Education makes regulations prescribing the rate of salaries and conditions of service.

  Employment Trends
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on employment trends in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  At June 1990 the estimated number of persons in employment in Northern Ireland—including the self-employed—stood at 605,400, which is some 7,000 higher than the previous peak level in 1979. Annual estimates also show that the level of employment has increased consistently since June 1983. Between June 1983 and June 1990 employment in Northern Ireland grew by almost 51,000–9·2 per cent.—mainly due to an increase in employment in private sector services and self-employment.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students are currently studying in universities and institutions of higher education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The answer is 25,559 full-time and part-time students. Institutions of further education also provide higher education courses and in 1989–90 total enrolments on such courses—full time and part time—amounted to 3,444 students.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the number of persons employed in the construction industry in each of the last five years for which figures are available in Northern Ireland and also list for each of those years (a) the number of dwellings constructed and (b) the number of construction workers unemployed.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Employees in employment in construction industry1

  Number of unemployed construction workers1

  Number of dwellings completed2

  1986

  24,550

  23,307

  10,145

  1987

  25,840

  21,964

  9,761

  1988

  26,360

  19,251

  9,941

  1989

  25,990

  17,938

  10,304

  1990

  25,940

  16,959

  7,912

  329
  1 Figures relate to June of each year.

  2 Figures relate to the calendar year.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the privatisation of the trust ports.

  Mr. Needham
  It is my intention to bring forward next spring a draft Order in Council which would provide the necessary powers to enable any of Northern Ireland's trust ports to be privatised.

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the highest level of clenbuterol found in cattle from County Laois in the Republic of Ireland which were presented for slaughter in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The answer is 27·2 parts per billion (ppb).

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many clenbuterol-treated cattle from County Laois in the Republic of Ireland have been presented for slaughter in Northern Ireland in the past 12 months;

  (2) how many clenbuterol-treated animals from County Donegal in the Republic of Ireland have been presented for slaughter in Northern Ireland in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the last 12 months two cattle from County Laois and 24 from County Donegal presented for slaughter in Northern Ireland have been found to contain residues of clenbuterol.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements exist for action against beef producers in the Republic of Ireland who present clenbuterol-treated animals for slaughter in meat plants in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  All such cases are communicated to the appropriate authorities in the Republic of Ireland arid it is for them to decide on what, if any, action is taken against the producers concerned.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that all animals originating from a farm in one of whose animals clenbuterol has been detected at a slaughterhouse should have their urine tested; and if he will bring forward proposals for acquiring powers to detain animals which have tested positive for clenbuterol.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am considering such a policy under the powers available when the Food Safety Order comes into effect on 21 May 1991.

  Salbutamol
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to carry out tests for salbutamol in animals, and to condemn meat in which salbutamol is found.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes, if it becomes apparent that there is abuse of salbutamol. At present we are only aware of abuse of clenbuterol.

  Beta Agonist Drugs
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many post-mortem tests are carried out each year on the eyeballs of bovines suspected of treatments with beta agonist drugs.

  Mr. Hanley
  Post-mortem tests concentrate on liver, as this is the edible tissue in which the highest levels of residue are found relative to the rest of the carcase. It also gives the most consistent results. The potential use of other tissue is being studied.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which part of an affected animal have residues of beta agonist drugs most frequently been found by official inspections in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  Residues of beta agonists have been found most frequently in the liver.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Charge Rebates
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of introducing a 100 per cent. rebate for community charge payers on income support and equivalent incomes in 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A maximum community charge benefit of 100 per cent. of liability would affect all people receiving community charge benefit, including those on income support and equivalent incomes. The total cost in 1991–92 of 100 per cent. maximum community charge benefit would be some £380 million at current benefit levels.

  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.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from 1986/7/8 family expenditure surveys.

  Child Benefit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (I) how much will be saved from the clawback of the increase in child benefit of £1 from parents' income support;

  (2) how many (a) single parents and (b) parents did not receive the child benefit increase of £ 1 because they are in receipt of income support and have had the increase deducted from their income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that approximately(a) 850,000 single parents and (b) 400,000 other families on income support have received the £1 increase in child benefit for the only, eldest or elder child from April. The payment of this extra amount has been taken into account for income support purposes in the normal way. It is estimated that the extra cost of disregarding the increase in child benefit in income support would be £65 million a year.

  Income support rates were also increased from April, and it is estimated that over 99 per cent. of income support recipients will have seen an overall increase in their

  331
  benefits. Families will receive a further increase in child benefit in October and, exceptionally, the family premium and child allowances will be increased at the same time so that those on income-related benefits gain the advantage of that increase.

  Source: 1989 ASE uprated to 1991–92 price and benefit levels.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when is the appointed day for the imposition of new requirements for pension increases included in the Social Security Act 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No final decision has yet been made.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implementation of the provision in the Social Security Act 1990 which requires pension schemes to increase the deferred pensions of anyone leaving by 5 per cent. per annum for all of their pensionable service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This provision came into force on 1 January 1991.

  Benefits (Manchester)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit; and what percentage of the Manchester population this represents.

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

  Bad Mustard Gas Disaster
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer,Official Report, 4 February, column 63, if he will publish in the Official Report how many of the survivors of the Bari harbour mustard gas disaster in 1943 died of (a) lung cancer and (b) other forms of cancer.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Income Support
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's target for clearing income support claims at each Edinburgh office(a) in 1991 and (b) in 1992; and what is the actual time taken to clear such claims at present.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the public information office.

  Departmental Land (London)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much land his Department owns in London; and how much of that land is unused.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department owns 1·05 hectares of land in London, of which 0·2 hectares is unused. Disposal of this recently vacated site is being actively pursued.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total cost to the national insurance fund, in the financial year 1991–92 and in a full year, of allowing people to contract out of SERPs into a money purchase personal pension scheme giving figures separately for(a) people contracting out of SERPs in 1991–92 and (b) all schemes, giving figures also for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The amount of revenue forgone by the national insurance fund is made up of the contracted-out rebate which was first introduced in April 1978, and the 2 per cent. incentive payment introduced in April 1988.

  The Government Actuary estimates that about 0·5 million people will receive payments towards personal pensions for the first time during 1991–92 and the estimated amount of revenue forgone by the national insurance fund in respect of those people will be £260 million for Great Britain, made up of £190 million rebate and £70 million incentive.

  The estimated amount of revenue forgone in respect of the total of 4·5 million who will receive payments during 1991–92 will he £2,350 million for Great Britain, made up of £1,740 million rebate and £610 million incentive.

  Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total cost to the national insurance fund in the financial year 1991–92 and in a full year of the 2 per cent. banded earnings offered as an incentive to opt out of SERPs, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: In the year 1991–92 the Government Actuary estimates that the amount of revenue forgone by the national insurance fund as the result of the incentive payment will be £750 million for Great Britain. This is in respect of an estimated 4·5 million personal pension optants and 1 million members of contracted-out occupational pension schemes who are eligible for incentive payments.

  The estimated amount of revenue forgone by offering the incentive in 1991–92 amounts to about 2 per cent. of the total income of the national insurance fund.

  It is also estimated that encouraging people to plan for their retirement in this way will result in a reduction in gross public expenditure of £2 billion a year in 2010 rising to £14 billion a year in 2035.

  Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

AIDS and Cancer Treatment: NHS Expenditure
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the National Health Service has spent in each of the last three years on (a) the treatment of people with cancer and (b) the treatment of people with AIDS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, substantial sums have been expended in both general and specific programmes; but since treatment for these conditions is provided in a variety of specialties and settings, it is not possible to identify accurately the total cost.
Lore Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Is she aware 1 hat the organisations publishing cancer relief funds state many times in their advertising that one in five people get cancer and one in three die of it? Therefore, can the Government say whether there are any official figures for the number of deaths per annum from both AIDS and cancer for the three years stated in the Question?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware of the Cancer Research Campaign that states that one in three people get cancer and that one in four die from it. We are very much aware of those figures. That is why it is our aim to improve knowledge about its causes, prevention and treatment. Where a complete cure is not possible a great deal can be done, and is being done, to maximise the length and quality of life for sufferers. We very much appreciate and recognise the major contribution that the cancer charities are making to this effort. I regret that I do not have the total figures on either disease to give to the noble Lord at this point.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that enormous strides have been made because of cancer research and that there are many people alive now who would not be were it not for the research undertaken by the National Health Service? Therefore, does she agree that the Macmillan Fund appeal and other such organisations are well worth supporting?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Viscount is living testimony of that. We are very happy to have him contributing to this Question Session. We recognise the importance of research. The total amount spent on research by the Government and the major cancer charities in 1989–90 was about £95
852
million. The Government's comprehensive research and development strategy for health which has just been launched indicates that we are seeking priorities which still have to be worked out in discussions with the National Health Service, medical experts, research councils and other research funders. We attribute considerable importance to the research aspect.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister believe that enough is done in all schools, including private schools, in teaching prevention as regards both AIDS and cancer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, again, health education is an extremely important area both in terms of helping the teachers to get the message across as well as specific programmes. Most of the Government's campaign is directed through the Health Education Authority. That goes towards various programmes directed at smoking education, nutrition, alcohol education, and so on.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister give any figures as to how many people are currently being treated at the Royal Marsden hospitals in Fulham and Sutton? Is she satisfied that there is enough money going into research for those very fine hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are certainly all aware of the splendid work that is being done at the Royal Marsden hospitals, particularly in the area of childhood cancer treatment. I cannot give the specific figures for which my noble friend asks. I repeat that we attribute considerable importance to the research aspect.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the BBC "Panorama" programme shown on 22nd April, Professor Karol Sikora of Hammersmith hospital claimed that of patients treated for cancer and AIDS in teaching hospitals, 60 per cent. survived as against 28 per cent. in district and general hospitals? That implies that if the skills of the teaching hospitals were transmitted to the district and general hospitals that would make much more money available for research in both respects?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret to say that I was unable to see the "Panorama" programme to which my noble friend referred. I believe that Professor Sikora referred to the difficulty of constructing league tables for cancer care in the absence of comprehensive information on the outcome of treatment at different centres.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that general practitioners who on examination of a patient suspect that cancer may be present will be able to seek confirmation almost immediately? I understand from one or two general practitioners that any delay can be most serious.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, general practitioners are well aware of the importance of their initial screening role. Indeed, the Government's efforts

853
through encouraging cervical and breast screening programmes and through funding in those specific areas are showing helpful results.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister share my view that, quite apart from the medical forms of treatment, natural therapies can have a profound influence both in terms of cancer and AIDS victims? That is beginning to be shown by work in places such as the Bristol Cancer Health Centre.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, I believe that what I understand to be the holistic approach is one that is increasingly finding favour with practitioners.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the television programme referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Constantine, carried some extremely disturbing implications, particularly for people who are at present suffering from cancer and who are being treated perhaps in district general hospitals rather than in main teaching hospitals? Will the Government do anything to allay the fears of these people and to assure them that the treatment they are receiving is the very best, wherever they are treated?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the aim of the Government's recent reforms has been to improve the treatment on all fronts for patients who require the services of the National Health Service. I understand that there is little evidence that treatment in specialist centres, in particular for the common adult solid tumours, results in better survival rates than can be obtained in district general hospitals.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are dangers in comparing the results of treatment in teaching hospitals with those in district general hospitals? The only fair and just way so to do is to have a controlled clinical trial. Therefore, I think we can reassure those being treated in district general hospitals that the television programme did not present an accurate picture.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend speaks as an expert in this matter. I am grateful to him for giving that reassurance.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McColl is obviously an expert in this field. However, is my noble friend aware that Mr. William Heald, who is a cancer expert at Basingstoke hospital, claims that by using a very simple method called the staple gun method the hospital experiences a recurrence rate of only 4 per cent.?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am advised that the results reported by Mr. Heald are considered to be exceptionally low by international standards. This is a matter for clinicians themselves. I understand that the profession is currently addressing the question of guidelines on the role of surgery in the management of colorectal cancer.

Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom elements of the United Nations observer force on the Iraq-Kuwait frontier have yet taken up their duties.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United Kingdom contingent of the observer force of the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait observation mission arrived in Kuwait during the week of 15th April.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I am sure that the good wishes of all of us go to members of this force as they take up their duties in the next few days. If they discover infringements of the cease-fire terms, do they have discretion to take any action on the spot or are they restricted to reporting to a United Nations headquarters?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the role of UNIKOM will be to monitor the demilitarised zone established along the Iraq-Kuwait border, to deter by its presence violations of the boundary and to observe and report to the United Nations Secretary General any hostile or potentially hostile action.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what is the size of the United Nations force on the Iraq-Kuwait border? Given that Her Majesty's Government are proposing a United Nations police force, can he tell the House what is the difference between a United Nations force and a United Nations police force?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the observation mission comprises a force of 300 observers which is drawn from a wide range of countries, including the Soviet Union, China, the United States and France. It is the first time that a United Nations observer force has included contributions from all those countries together. The noble Lord asked about a United Nations police force. This is a proposal for northern Iraq which we have made to the United Nations Secretary General.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I was seeking to find out the difference between the United Nations force which is currently on the Iraq-Kuwait border and a United Nations police force as proposed by the Government.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the UNIKOM force was established under Security Council Resolution 687 which was passed on 3rd April. It called upon the Secretary General to establish an observer unit to monitor the demilitarised zone. The proposal for a United Nations police force which we have made to the Secretary General has so far only been discussed informally by the ambassadors of the Permanent Five whose governments are now considering the matter further.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the Minister speaks of the observer force of 300 men, presumably that does not include the protection force for the observer force of infantry and field engineers. Can he say whether they are now operational and, if they are not, when they will be? Further, can he say when the last American troops will leave the area?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in what: he first said. UNIKOM will be unarmed but it will be escorted by a United Nations infantry force of five infantry companies drawn from existing UN peace-keeping operations to provide security during the setting up phase. So far as concerns the withdrawal of forces from the demilitarised zone, all forces, including United States' troops, are planned to be withdrawn when UNIKOM takes over on 6th May.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what assistance the United Nations observer and protection forces are receiving from the Kuwaiti Government in carrying out their duties?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that I have any particular information to give in answer to that question. Plainly the arrangements could not operate if the Kuwaiti Government were hostile to them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is it honestly the case that we are receiving no financial or other assistance other than passive assent in respect of this operation, which is, after all, very important to the Kuwait Government; indeed, the whole operation was mounted in order to help them? Are we really saying that they are doing absolutely nothing to assist in the consequences of the action which we took, to some extent, on their behalf?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I did not say that the Kuwaiti Government would do nothing to assist. This is a United Nations operation which is responsible to the UN and conducted under the terms of a UN resolution.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given the fact that five infantry companies do not amount to a very formidable force, are there contingency plans for reinforcement should breaches of the agreement occur on a serious scale?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans for reinforcements; plainly this would be a matter for the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the circumstances, would it not be wise to delay the return of the forces that are already in the area until we are sure that: the arrangement is working?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can speak only for our own forces. No decision has been taken on the timing of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom battle group, which is not present in the demilitarised zone but in Kuwait. That is a decision which is kept under close review a Id one which will be taken in the light of all the circumstances.

Eye Examinations: Charges
3.23 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish a report on the consequences of the introduction of charges for eye examinations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on 6th June 1990 the Government published the report of an independent market research company —NOP —on a survey of adults who had had sight tests during the first quarter of 1990. The results indicated that, in the first year after the restrictions on entitlement to National Health Service sight tests, there was an initial drop in the number of tests but that demand was returning to normal. We have no plans to publish another report at present.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept the report published by the Association of Optometrists which was only recently published in April? Further, now that two years have passed since the ending of free National Health Service sight tests, against the express wish of this House, is it not quite clear that a very serious mistake was made by Parliament at that time? Is it not also clear from recent evidence that there has been a fall of roughly one-fifth in the number of eye tests, especially affecting elderly patients, with the consequence that serious eye conditions, such as glaucoma, diabetes, hypertension and even brain tumours, are going undiagnosed? Does the noble Baroness accept that report and does she not think that it is a very serious challenge to the decision taken by the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the survey of the Association of Optometrists published in April the year 1988 was used as a baseline. In fact, that gives a distorted picture as sight tests were then at an all-time high prior to the highly publicised changes in eligibility in April 1989. However, it is encouraging to note that even those figures show that the number of sight tests is returning to normal, with those for the third quarter of this year up by 10 per cent. and those for the fourth quarter up by 16 per cent. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that eye disease is not being detected.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if she had consulted the opticians who actually carry out the eye tests and sell spectacles in the high streets rather than their association, she would have found that despite all the scaremongering, neither eye tests nor spectacle sales have fallen dramatically? Indeed, in some areas they have even increased.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend emphasises the difficulty in comparing one type of survey with another. We are not comparing like with like.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, following on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that an increasing number of elderly people are not having

857
tests, does the Minister agree that it must follow that there are increasing numbers of drivers on the roads who are a hazard both to themselves and to other drivers? Has that aspect been taken into account by the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, pensioners and elderly people on low incomes, or those people who have special medical needs, receive free sight tests in any event. We believe that it is reasonable to expect other pensioners who can afford to do so to pay the very modest sum involved. In fact, some 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of people are still able to have free sight tests. Therefore, I believe that we should not succumb to scaremongering.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as someone who has just had eye surgery —the need for which was uncovered by a routine eye examination —can the Minister tell me whether the charges are consistent with the Prime Minister's recent pledge that the NHS will remain free at the point of use?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the important consideration is that people who are really in need should have the opportunity to have totally free services. I believe that the variation in charges is not very great. Individual opticians set those charges and of course they vary. I repeat, only those people who can afford to pay are asked to pay any charges. Typically, those charges are something like £10 to £15 for an eye test, which is expected to take place every couple of years. I am sure that the noble Baroness found no difficulty in providing the payment for that eye test.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is not really quite so opposed to the privatisation of parts of the NHS as would appear to be the case? Further, would it be in order for the House to congratulate him on his appointment as a consultant to an old people's home which is run by a private company?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am very happy to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on this sign of his further involvement in all aspects of health treatment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that over the weekend her right honourable friend the Prime Minister held a meeting at Chequers, and perhaps a seminar, about health? Further, does she know whether preventive medicine was discussed at that seminar? In that connection, would it not have been a good idea for the Government to have restored free eye tests?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, not only am I aware of the seminar, I actually attended it. Considerable interest was certainly shown by everyone around that table —that is, politicians and medical experts—in the importance of preventive methods to be taken. In that context, we still aim to have all health treatment available absolutely free for all those who cannot afford it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that in view of the high proportion of people who are entitled to free treatment —she mentioned figures of 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. —wide publicity will be given to that fact? I believe that many people are not aware that they qualify for free treatment. Can she further assure us that the Government are doing something about simplifying the form for assistance to help those who do not wish to claim benefits in general —including, for example, assistance with prison visits; a matter that I have previously raised —but simply wish to have help with their eye tests?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, some 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the population is still entitled to free sight tests. That includes all children and people on low incomes as well as those most at risk of developing a serious eye disease. The Government have promoted the availability of those free eye tests to bring them to the attention of those people who are in need. We bear in mind the importance of having simple forms.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister consult the Association of Optometrists about its survey, to which she referred in a way that misrepresents the conclusions of that study? Will she also consult Age Concern, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Consumers' Association and other organisations concerned with the welfare of elderly people, because were she to do so she would find that they stand solidly behind the Labour Party commitment that when it comes to power it will return to free sight tests, especially for elderly people?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, not only have I already consulted all the organisations referred to by the noble Lord, but I shall continue to do so.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we are talking about a vital subject —people's eyesight. That might not appear important to noble Lords opposite, but it is important to most people. Will the Minister carry out the promise she has given to ensure that people who may not be able to afford an eye test know that they can have one? It is an important point, and I am glad that she made it. Does she further agree that those who are interested in people's eyesight and wish to ask questions about it should not be labelled as scaremongers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.

Shipping: British Merchant Fleet and Gulf War
3.31 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many ships were chartered to carry men and equipment for the Gulf war and how many of them were registered in the United Kingdom.
Lord Reay: My Lords, 114 vessels were chartered in support of the move of men and equipment to the Gulf, of which five were British flagged. A number of those vessels undertook more than one voyage.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am aware that the special circumstances of the Gulf somewhat distort those figures Is he aware that, as a result of the recent report on our merchant fleet and its rundown, Early Day Motion No. 500, signed by 355 Members of Parliament in another place, drew attention to the need for action to reverse that position? It seems that if nothing is done we shall lose the fourth arm of our defence services and will no longer be able to deploy our forces as we did so well in the Gulf. The interests of Britain and its allies may be threatened in many parts or the world and we shall be unable to move our forces there. Can something be set in action to try to correct the position so that we have the flexibility to deploy our forces speedily where they are needed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that action is needed. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged the interests of Members of another place in this matter when he singled out the Merchant Navy for assistance in the Budget. He proposed a further relaxation of the rules giving tax relief to British seafarers working mainly overseas. That will mean that more seamen will be exempt from United Kingdom tax on their overseas earnings. As my right honourable friend explained, his intention was to encourage shipping companies to draw their crews from United Kingdom seamen.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while it is regrettable that the merchant fleet flying the United Kingdom flag is now as small as it is, were not the circumstances last August that most of the suitable vessels were unavailable because they were already engaged —a felicitous reason for not being available at that time?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the advantage of chartering is that one can do so quickly. In the case of the Gulf conflict, we were able to operate entirely by charter on commercial terms and to obtain all the ships we needed in that way. The disadvantage is that chartered ships can refuse to sail into danger zones. That did not happen in that case. If it had, no doubt the Government and Parliament would have had to consider the possibility of emergency legislation which would have enabled requisitioning to take place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I asked —I believe that it was last week —a supplementary question as to whether we had sufficient merchant ships to mount an operation similar to that which was mounted in the Falklands to deal with a nasty little dictator, I was assured that the British merchant fleet was up to the job? Is e aware that the Answer he has given today seems to contradict his noble friend? Will he say which Answer is correct?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think so. We should just about be able to mount an operation today similar to the one we mounted in the case of the Falklands, although it would be tight for some classes of ships.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify the position as to the requisitioning of a vessel owned by a United Kingdom registered company sailing under a flag of convenience?
Lord Reay: My Lords, a ship has to be a British-flagged ship, flying the Red Ensign, before Her Majesty's Government can requisition it. Ownership is not the determining consideration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if that is the case, will Her Majesty's Government reconsider their attitude to flags of convenience?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is not a matter we intend to look at again at the moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if it comes to requisitioning in a state similar to that which existed at the time of the Gulf crisis, there is sufficient tonnage under the British flag to meet our defence needs?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, in that case we were able to obtain the ships that we wanted, but it is possible to imagine a situation in which it might not be so easy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the defence of this country and of our national interests should depend upon the willingness of charterers to go into danger zones?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I explained, if those circumstances had arisen, we should have had to consider the possibility of initiating emergency legislation.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that one of the lessons learnt from the Gulf war was the effectiveness of helicopter gunships? Do some of the merchant ships have strengthened decks to carry those effective weapons?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there are a certain number of modern tankers and ships designed to take civil helicopters, which in some cases can be as heavy as military helicopters, and they should be available.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Bill will be taken.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday 23rd May and return on Monday 3rd June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 23rd May.

Road Traffic Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): 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 Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offences of dangerous driving]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (2A)").
The noble Lord said: It falls to my lot to move the first amendment on this important Bill. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the whole Committee would like to join in welcoming back the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, after his hospital treatment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Underhill: This is a complicated Bill, although not of great political content. I am glad that the Minister will be fresh and energetic to deal with the many points that will arise. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 is merely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 2.
The effect of this amendment is to include driving when suffering from fatigue as one of the criteria for the new offence of dangerous driving. This matter was raised —admittedly briefly —in Committee in the other place. It was pointed out on that occasion that the White Paper, The Road User and the Law, committed the Government to extending the scope of the offence of driving or attempting to drive while unfit through drink or drugs to drivers who are unfit through any physical condition, such as fatigue. I quote from paragraph 2.31 of the White Paper:
"The offence will remain one of strict liability and is intended to cover people who are unfit to drive a motor vehicle by reason of drink, drugs, substance abuse, temporary incapacity due to fatigue, somnolence or temporary disability".
An amendment to provide exactly what the White Paper proposed was brought forward in Committee in the other place. Surprisingly, this was rejected by the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, primarily because he said that the overwhelming response to a consultation paper was opposition to the proposal. The Minister continued:
"The reasons were that it became clear that it would be difficult to frame an offence to deal with a driver who falls asleep at the wheel. It would be unfair to convict if the effects of the fatigue could not have been foreseen". —[Official report, Commons, 15/1/91; col. 46.]
I am certain that all Members of the Committee agreed that the Government should not be discouraged from changing their mind in the light of consultation documents. However, in this case the statement was quite clear in the White Paper. The important issue must have been considered by the
862
Government when the White Paper was published in February 1989. When they drafted the White Paper they must have considered the point raised in the Minister's reply in Committee in the Commons. It is significant that the Civil Aviation Authority recently proposed that fatigue should be one of the factors to be covered in regulations governing air traffic controllers.
When the amendment was moved in the other place, it was stressed that the adoption of a new offence and the production of publicity material associated with it could have a deterrent effect. The Minister quoted various bodies whose responses were to oppose the proposals. It would be interesting to know the view of the police. Their response has not been referred to. However, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I am the president, issued its response. It has police advisers and I assure the Committee that those advisers were fully in support of the AMA response, which was in complete agreement with the basis of the amendment I now propose.
Despite the Minister's attitude in the Commons Committee, it should be mentioned that at the Second Reading in another place the Secretary of State was so impressed by the arguments in support of the proposal that he said he was prepared to look at the subject again. That was on 10th December at col. 689.
The matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, myself and other noble Lords at Second Reading. On that occasion the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to it in his reply. However, except for commenting that the causes of fatigue are complex, he did not explain the reasons for deciding not to make the change in the Bill as suggested in the White Paper.
The purpose of the amendment is to highlight that it is stupid and irresponsible to drive when fatigued. I am certain that many noble Lords have suffered from fatigue and have considered whether they should continue driving or have a rest. I hope that the Minister will decide that this is an important matter. It is in line with the original White Paper proposal and I hope that he will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I find myself in some difficulty over the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will not mind my saying that his reference to a comparison with the position of air traffic controllers is quite misleading. There is no suggestion by the Civil Aviation Authority that an air traffic controller who becomes less efficient than he should be because of fatigue commits a criminal offence. It is simply that as a matter of sensible policy it is thought advisable by the authority to take care that air traffic controllers, with their responsible and difficult job, should not work when too fatigued. There is all the difference in the world between that responsible attitude of the authority and suggesting, as the amendment does, that there should be a criminal offence committed by the fatigued person.

863
The only other point I make is that I believe it would be quite extraordinarily difficult to prove at a court hearing that a driver was, as a result of fatigue, driving dangerously. The hearing may take place some days later and no one will be in a good position to judge, other than the person concerned, whether he was suffering from fatigue. People's stamina varies enormously. Some people —I am sure that the noble Lord opposite is one —have tremendous stamina; they can go on working, as he does in this House, for many hours without showing any manifest symptoms of fatigue. Other people are less resistant to it.
It seems to me extraordinarily difficult to charge a man with driving when he is tired. If he goes to sleep at the wheel, other charges could easily be preferred. However, one is not concerned with that. The amendment proposes that if someone drives when suffering from fatigue, he thereby commits a criminal offence. I can see possibilities of injustice if charges were brought under this clause. No one, except the man himself or the woman herself, is in a position to know whether the fatigue was serious enough to diminish his or her effectiveness. I shall listen with interest to what my noble friend the Minister says, but I have some doubt about the amendment.
Lord Renton: I share this doubt. I wish to add one or two points. The first is that we are asked to make a presumption with regard to danger, but it is not a necessary presumption. Normally in cases like this the guilt of the accused is judged by the way in which he drives, not by the condition in which he may or may not be. I sometimes get sleepy when driving, especially on a long journey. The sleepiness may not be caused by fatigue at all but by boredom or by there not being enough fresh air in the car. The boredom can be overcome by turning on the car radio, especially if there is a report of parliamentary proceedings. The lack of fresh air is easily overcome by opening the window at the side of the driver's seat, and possibly by turning off the heating inside the car. However, to make an assumption that any kind of fatigue or apparent cause of fatigue must inevitably give rise to the kind of dangerous driving to which Section 2A already refers may well turn out to be unfair in many cases.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his kind remarks when moving the amendment. I am pleased to be back and able to lake part in the Committee stage of what is an important Bill. I hope that we shall treat it as such.
Turning to the content of the amendment, we are all in agreement that the question of driving fatigue as an element of dangerous driving is difficult. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Driving when overtired, for whatever reason, is dangerous. Common sense tells us that the risk of having an accident increases the more tired a driver becomes,. My noble friend Lord Renton has outlined some of the reasons why drivers may suffer from fatigue. But fatigue is not the only physical condition which increases significantly the risk of having an accident. We should not place undue emphasis on it to the exclusion of other factors which are equally, if not
864
more, important, such as alcohol and medical conditions. That is why the Highway Code gives the following advice to drivers:
"Do not start a journey if you feel tired. Never drive after drinking alcohol or while under the influence of drugs. If you have to take drugs in the course of medical treatment consult your doctor about their possible effect on your driving ability. Do not drive if you feel unwell".
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned, we have given a good deal of thought to this matter as it was originally proposed in the Government White Paper, The Road User and the Law. The reaction to that proposal was unfavourable on the grounds that it would be unfair on people whose illness or incapacity could not have been foreseen, and it would be difficult to prove. A consultation paper issued in March 1990 explained that the proposal had been dropped. Response to that paper was overwhelmingly in favour of the decision.
We have therefore given the matter a good deal of consideration and we have concluded that it is too difficult to frame an offence which would catch a fatigued driver before there was evidence to show the effects on his driving. One of the main difficulties is that there is no established method for measuring fatigue, unlike alcohol consumption. But, where there is bad driving, it should be possible to bring an appropriate charge. My noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter made that point very clearly. For all those reasons, I believe we should reject the amendment although I accept that it responds to a real anxiety. Nevertheless, I do not believe it would be helpful.
Baroness Phillips: I recall that some time ago we discussed legislation in this Chamber which concerned the number of hours that a driver of a public service vehicle could remain at the wheel. That discussion was connected with the tachographs which revealed how many hours a driver had been at the wheel. Surely that discussion is relevant to the Bill that we are discussing. I am not suggesting that tachographs should be installed in private cars, but surely it should be possible to ask a driver whether he has been driving for, say, longer than six or seven hours without a break. There is no doubt that people often drive for far too long perhaps because their business obligations force them to do so. I have been driven by people who have asked me to keep talking to keep them awake. That was probably why they took me along for the ride. It is possible to assess, presumably in hours, how long someone can drive without becoming fatigued. If such a measure can be introduced in one piece of legislation, I do not understand why a similar measure cannot be introduced in this Bill.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness has raised a point which deserves consideration. I hope I may remind the Committee that the limitation on drivers' hours was contained in the Road Traffic Act 1930 and referred specifically at first to drivers of public service vehicles. I believe it was extended later to the drivers of commercial goods vehicles. There is no point in making provisions of that kind unless they are enforceable. In the case of the public service vehicles and the commercial goods vehicles they are

865
enforceable because drivers are obliged to keep journey records. They have an obligation to do so. Quite frankly, if we were to apply the same sort of test to private cars, it would not be enforceable. I cannot imagine that with all the road inspectors that would be needed, we could contrive a system whereby every single driver of a private car kept an accurate record of the hours he spends driving and that that could be relied upon.
Lord Gisborough: I wish to reinforce that point. Many drivers who become tired may well have only just got into their cars or have driven for only one mile. They may have become tired during the day doing something totally different. The number of miles they drive after that does not alter the fact that they were tired when they got into their cars.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: They may have attended a prolonged debate in this Chamber until a late hour.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I believe my noble friend Lord Renton has answered many of the points that the noble Baroness made. The rules concerning drivers of commercial vehicles, whether public service vehicles or lorries, are aimed at those whose business it is to transport various items. They may well become tired after a certain number of hours spent at the wheel. However, as my noble friend has just said, one could be tired before one gets into one's car, not having driven a single mile; for example, those of us who get into our cars at the end of this evening's debate in the Chamber. The question of fatigue relating to private drivers is a very different matter.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to those who have taken part in the discussion on this important amendment. The Minister has explained why the proposal in the White Paper has been dropped. However, I cannot understand —I am certain others will not understand this either —why this matter was not seriously considered before the White Paper was published. This is an important issue. Questions have been raised of a legal nature, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Reference has been made to hours spent at the wheel. Tachographs will be discussed on a later amendment dealing with heavy goods vehicles. I am on very good terms with my local vehicle hire firms, and I do not wish to upset them. Without the aid of those vehicles, I could not get to the Chamber on certain days. I know the hours that a person who works for such firms may work. Some drivers work long hours for economic necessity; some do it because they enjoy driving; while others do it simply because their employer wishes them to work such hours. Have the Government any intention of considering legislation to deal with the number of hours that a mini cab driver, for example, may remain at the wheel?
Reference has been made to the fact that one can get in one's car and feel tired after having driven for just one mile as one was already tired before getting into the car. I know of people who have been stopped by a policeman before they even got into their cars.
866
The policeman suspected they had been drinking heavily by the way they held the door handle of the car. However, I believe it is quite right for the police to take such action.
I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am not a lawyer but, as regards a driver accused of an offence, I am certain it would be possible to ascertain under cross-examination how many hours he had been driving, his attitude and what he had been doing prior to driving. I am certain lawyers could find some way of dealing with this issue. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I hope this debate will convince the Minister and his department that this is an important matter to which some publicity should be given so that people do not risk driving long distances when they are fatigued. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Careless, and inconsiderate, driving]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 18, after ("attention") insert ("including while using hand-held car telephone apparatus while the vehicle is in motion").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the matter of hand held car telephones. A similar amendment was proposed in Committee in another place. I and my noble friends appreciate the value of the development of the car telephone. It is a considerable asset to many people who find it necessary to travel. The amendment is aimed at hand-held instruments being used by a driver when the car is being driven. The practice can be distracting and potentially dangerous to other road users. I am sure that every noble Lord who drives about the country will have realised that by seeing what happens when people use hand-held telephones while driving their cars.
In Committee in another place reference was made to other circumstances in which drivers take one hand off the wheel, such as eating an apple, lighting and smoking a cigarette and fiddling with the radio or cassette. The Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, appeared to be sympathetic to those points. However, all of us, except those who have automatic cars, are always taking one hand off the wheel to change gear. That might have been brought in as another foolish point to oppose the amendment.
The Minister went on to say:
"there is universal condemnation of the use of car phones while cars are being driven. It is especially dangerous on motorways. The highway code specifically states that drivers should not use a hand-held telephone or microphone while the vehicle is in motion except for an emergency. That is rule 54 of the code. A driver who does so could face a charge for not having proper control of the vehicle or, indeed, a more serious charge depending on the circumstances of the case".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 15/1/91; col. 33.]
It was then pointed out to the Minister that despite what he said enough is not being done to discourage this very dangerous practice and that very few prosecutions are brought to act as a deterrent.
I believe that the amendment will send a clear message. It will act as a deterrent so that people will

867
not do this. When the Minister replies can he give figures for the number of prosecutions that have been brought as a result of this very dangerous practice of using a hand-held telephone while a car is being driven?
We know that the manufacturers are alert to the situation. A number of manufacturers are now bringing forward instruments which do not need to be held. That should be encouraged. However, the Minister will appreciate that it is not sufficient to put this in the Highway Code. We need the utmost publicity about this very dangerous practice. I do not know how many noble Lords do that, but I am sure that others, like me, see what happens when people are using tie instruments when driving. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said since it is obvious to any of us that using a hand-held telephone while driving a car is a very dangerous practice. I have sometimes travelled with people who have done it and I confess to the Committee that I felt considerable apprehension while that was happening. Members of the Committee may perhaps. sometimes regret that my apprehensions were ill-founded!
My only hesitation relates to the fact that anyone conducting this practice is quite plainly driving without due care and attention. A charge would therefore lie without adding these words to the Bill. I know that the noble Lord said that he wants to spell it out, but the trouble is that when legislating if one spells out one offence one appears to override the importance of others. There are many other activities in a moving car which are equally dangerous. An obvious one, without going into too much detail, is paying too much attention to a charming companion in the adjoining seat. Some Members of the Committee may, indirectly, have observed that happening. Therefore I wonder whether the law is not clear enough already and, if one is caught telephone in hand while driving a car, one would not in any event be convicted.
If that is right, and I wait to hear what my noble friend the Minister says, then it would be bad draftsmanship to pick out one plain example of driving without due care and attention while ignoring others. As a normal principle of legislation that is a sound approach.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sits down perhaps he would agree that there is one essential difference between the very constructive points that he has made —namely, that when one is using a telephone one is driving with one hand —that would not apply in the other example (at least, I presume it would not) of having the kind of companion to which he referred.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It might be indelicate for me to reply to the noble Lord from the Floor of this Chamber, though I am sure that his experience as a man of the world may to some extent contradict what he said.
Lord Gisborough: I do not use a hand-held telephone. I do not have one. I join all those people who detest mobile telephones. We have seen in another context the depth of feeling against the mobile telephone —additional tax was placed on it. However, I do not believe that someone who is holding a telephone cannot necessarily pay adequate attention to the road. On the other hand, I believe that people who change a cassette are really dangerous because their attention and their eyes are taken off the road. That is really dangerous. I do not believe that speaking on the telephone is necessarily dangerous.
If being mobile and speaking on the telephone is illegal those people who use their telephones when traffic is crawling at five miles an hour are also acting illegally, but they are probably telephoning to say that they will be late. I do not support the amendment.
Lord Renton: We should not end this discussion without reminding ourselves of what the Chancellor said in his Budget Statement on 19th March (at col. 176 of Commons Hansard for that day). It might assist the Committee if I read it out:
"I turn now to what I regard as one of the greatest scourges of modern life. I refer to the mobile telephone. I propose to bring the benefit of car phones into income tax and to simplify the tax treatment of mobile phones by introducing a standard charge on the private use of such phones provided by an employer".
There is a limitation, I agree.
"Tax will be paid of £200 for each phone for 1991–92. I hope that, as a result of this measure, restaurants will be quieter and the roads will be safer".
I suggest that we give the Chancellor's fiscal measure an opportunity to produce results without adding for the time being to the offences in the Road Traffic Bill.
Baroness Nicol: I should like strongly to support my noble friend's amendment. Several times in the past few weeks driving down the M.11 on Monday mornings I have had to fall in behind a car whose driver —always a gentleman, I regret to say —is holding a telephone, has put himself in the centre lane of the motorway, reduced his speed to about 60 miles an hour so that he can give half of his attention to driving and the other half to the telephone and is ignoring the left hand lane, which is completely empty. When one wishes to drive faster than 60 miles an hour, in order to overtake him one has to pull right out into the outside lane before being able to go back into the left hand lane.
That is two offences in one. We are not nearly fierce enough with people who hog the centre lane when the left hand lane is empty. When that person's attention is diverted by the use of a telephone it becomes a very serious matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is driving without due care and attention and I do not know why more people are not prosecuted.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I added my name to the amendment because I have some sympathy with it. I have seen drivers with a hand-held telephone start their call at the traffic lights. The lights turn green and the phone is in their left hand. They have to change the phone to their right hand to change gear, meanwhile

869
steering the car with their knees. That is not very easy and is very unsafe because they are not in control of the car for the few minutes until they get into top gear.
There is an article in ROSPA's magazine Care on the Road in which the police say,
"Have you heard the one about the motorist driving along the M.6 with his car phone to one ear and his finger in the other? You do not believe it? Neither did the guilty driver until he watched the replay of the police video".
The amendment might cause problems with cyclists using Walkman machines, which is also a dangerous practice as you cannot hear the traffic coming up behind you. I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I shall listen to my noble friend's reply.
Baroness Phillips: I too should like to support the amendment. The advertisements on television are particularly dangerous because they show a man in a van who is clever enough to have a telephone while the other people cannot get in touch with anyone. He is usually shown on a motorway, just as my noble friend Lady Nicol described. With the telephone, the driver can do things that others cannot.
I was in a vehicle that was completely smashed up in Parliament Square. It is the second time that something has happened to me in Parliament Square. It seems to be a place to avoid. The driver of the van who crashed into the Mercedes said that he was looking at a map, so he had no hands on the wheel. That was going one better. When it was suggested that it was a case of driving without due care, I said that it was dangerous driving. The phrase "due care" does not mean anything.
This telephone business has rather a macho image. Those of us who travel by rail have to listen to totally fatuous conversations so that those people can produce their telephones. They usually ring their wives to say that they are on the way home, which must astonish their wives. It is unfortunate that it is now the "in" thing. The advertisements always show the man with the telephone. It undoubtedly takes a person's attention away from the wheel. I do not speak as a driver, but as one who has been driven by some drivers who probably should not be on the road but, as they offered me a lift, I did not refuse.
We must be careful not to add more dangers to those that already exist in driving, particularly, as my noble friend said, on motorways.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and I have great sympathy with the amendment. When I was much younger, I was a grand prix driver. People today do not appreciate the speed of traffic. They must concentrate all their attention on driving. It is perfectly all right for a person to use a telephone in his car if he goes at a leisurely speed but, if he goes at 70, 80, 90 or 100 miles an hour and breaks the law, he is a danger to the public, no matter how proficient he is. In my experience, having occasionally driven with people who have hand-held telephones in their cars, they are only trying to show off the fact that they are rich enough to have them, but I should like to see them banished from the roads.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting short debate on this matter. It is obvious from the debate that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux, have witnessed examples of the bad use of car telephones by drivers. It is also obvious, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, that in his Budget speech my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer touched a nerve which has also been of concern to the Committee.
I should begin my reply to the debate by making it quite clear that the Government condemn the practice of using a telephone handset while driving. The Highway Code states quite clearly in Rule 54 that drivers should not use a hand-held telephone or microphone while the vehicle is in motion, except in an emergency. Noble Lords will be aware that contravention of the Highway Code is not in itself an offence, but it can provide prima facie evidence of, for instance, careless or inconsiderate driving. That applies to Rule 54 as much as to any other part of the Highway Code.
Noble Lords may also know that the construction and use regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1988 create an offence of not having proper control of a vehicle. There are circumstances in which use of a hand-held telephone can be held to constitute an offence under the regulations.
I know that there are those who say that this is a back-door approach to dealing with a threat to road safety and that what is needed is, as the amendment states, a specific offence. I do not agree. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the principle behind the road traffic acts —a principle which was examined and commended by the North Report-is that bad driving should be covered by a limited number of general offences backed up by a similarly limited number of easily proved specific offences. The obvious examples of the latter are speeding and traffic-light offences.
There are many types of behaviour when driving a car which are to be deplored —my noble friend Lord Gisborough quoted the example of changing a cassette in a cassette player —but they are not all the subject of separate specific offences; nor should they be. It is much better that a driver can be charged, depending on the facts of the case, with careless or even dangerous driving. The prosecution can then bring evidence as to what the driver was doing, whether using a telephone handset or anything else, and how that constituted careless driving. The police and prosecution service are content with their existing powers. Convictions for careless driving in those circumstances are far from unknown.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about that point. Unfortunately, the statistics for careless driving, as for construction and use offences, are not collected in such a way as to permit us to identify how the offences were committed, but I can assure noble Lords that they are convictions. They will undoubted-ly have seen reports of them from time to time in the press.

871
I appreciate and endorse the strength of feeling against the use of hand-held telephones while moving, but I do not believe that further legislation is either necessary or desirable in that case.
Lord Underhill: It is notable that no noble Lord said that it was a good idea to use a telephone while driving. The Minister made clear the Government's view; namely, that the practice is to be deplored.
It was asked why we should pick out that particular offence, The Minister referred to Rule 54 of the Highway Code but, despite that rule, people persist in that foolish and dangerous practice. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to endeavour to lay more emphasis on stopping the practice. I do not intend to divide the Committee, but we must do far more than just say that the matter is covered in the code. A number of matters are covered in the code, but people do not follow the advice. Every noble Lord who spoke in effect deplored the practice of people using hand-held telephones while driving. I hope that manufacturers will be encouraged to explore hands-free equipment, that drivers will be encouraged to use that equipment and that firms which pay for their employees to have a telephone in their car as a useful object while they are driving will be encouraged to provide their employees with hands-free telephones.
Great emphasis should be laid on and publicity given to the point of the amendment. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I wish to raise a few points on Clause 2 of which I have given notice to my noble friend and which I raised on Second Reading. I thank my noble friend for his letter of 27th March covering, some of the points that I raised on Second Reading. I am content with his explanation as to why he cannot at present bring in new legislation to simplify the road traffic signs, but I hope that he can find a way round the problem soon.
I want to come back to my point about motorway driving standards; that is lane discipline and tailgating. There must be some way (stiff fines or something else) to get motorway drivers to pull into the inside lane when they have overtaken other cars and to deal with cars that proceed slowly and sit in the middle lane with big lorries sitting on their tails flashing their lights.
As the White Paper said in paragraph 6.6, the Government recognise the importance of improving public understanding of the law and propose to produce a clear and simplified guide for the lay person to understand the Highway Code. Together with heavier penalties, that would be one way to get the message home.
The other point I raised at Second Reading concerned the yellow junction boxes. When they were first introduced on the whole drivers did not go into them if their exit was not clear. That has changed. Cars are always stopping in those boxes blocking the way for ether road users and causing disruption to the
872
flow of traffic and long tailbacks. Can we not consider making them red boxes and have more signs warning drivers to keep clear?
The last point is concerned with drivers who fail to use their indicators. I like to think that we have been given two eyes to see with and two hands to point with; car manufacturers have provided us with two flashing indicators so that others can see. If drivers fail to use their indicators, not only are they guilty of inconsiderate driving but also of dangerous driving which can affect other road users and pedestrians. In an ideal world, if everyone took an advanced driving test, as I have, they would be much more aware of their past misdemeanours than they are now and would rectify them. That is one way of re-educating drivers, which is long overdue. I hope that the new Highway Code will be simpler for drivers to understand and that all of these points as well a lot of others will be covered.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Knowing that my noble friend was going to raise some points in the debate on whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, I venture to intervene for one moment. On the question of the yellow boxes, I shall look forward to discussing it further when we consider remote surveillance equipment later in the Bill.
This debate gives me the opportunity of discussing generally motorway driving and behaviour. The Committee may recall that some months ago there was an horrific road accident on one of our motorways. It caused a Question to be asked in your Lordships' House which tended to lay the blame firmly on the police authorities for not having switched on warning lights at an earlier stage. That Question was answered in part by a noble Lord from the Cross-Benches with whom I agreed. In his remarks, he suggested that this was not really the responsibility of the police or highway authorities but was firmly the responsibility of individual drivers.
In the past few days we have had some fairly foul weather. While anecdotal evidence is not very good for the purpose of law-making, it will illustrate what I mean. When driving on a motorway last Monday in absolutely appalling weather I came across an individual waving vigorously, urging traffic to move over from the right-hand lane. Suspecting that an accident had taken place, I and a number of other drivers slowed down to about 40 miles per hour. We came upon an accident involving three cars. Notwithstanding that, within moments cars and other vehicles resumed thrashing down the motorway certainly at all of 70 miles per hour —I would not suggest any more —in conditions which made it patently obvious to anybody that speed should be restricted. I take this opportunity of praising the police and authorities responsible for warnings on motorways for what they are able to do in the very short time available to them. But I underline that frankly the cause and remedy lie in the hands of the motorist and that responsibility cannot be passed to anybody else.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My noble friend Lord Brougham kindly gave me notice that he would raise

873
a number of points on the use of motorways, tailgating, box junctions and lane discipline. I have considerable sympathy with the points he has raised. Motorways are still the safest roads. They carry 14.6 per cent. of all traffic but account for only 2.5 per cent. of those killed or seriously injured. We are all aware of some of the serious accidents which have taken place recently. My noble friend Lord Lucas reminded us of one such accident not long ago. The Government are not complacent about safety on motorways and agree that a minorityߞand I hope it is only a minority-drive dangerously. Legislation is not always the answer. We need to ensure that drivers are aware of the rules and the road safety reasons for them. We welcome the efforts of the police in educating drivers: for example, through their regular motorway safety campaigns. Indeed, they are planning another national campaign this summer.
As far as tailgating is concerned, I agree that driving too close to other cars and overtaking on the inside lane is dangerous. There is no evidence to show that it is a major cause of accidents, but I am concerned that motorists who do this are increasing the risk of having an accident. Some police forces are using video cameras to educate drivers about the dangers involved. It is not a specific offence but drivers could be charged with careless and inconsiderate driving, or in extreme cases, the new dangerous driving offence. As with the use of indicators, this is largely a matter of education backed up where necessary by enforcement. I am not aware that in itself it is a major cause of accidents, but it may well be a contributory factor.
Dealing with box junctions, failure to comply with the requirements of a box junction marking is an offence of failing to comply with a traffic sign under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
As far as lane discipline is concerned, the advice given in the Highway Code is clear; it says
"keep to the left except when overtaking".
Lane discipline is not in itself a specific offence. Although the Highway Code is not a legal document, it has the statutory authority of Parliament, and consequently failure to comply with the rules therein may be brought forward as evidence in proceedings for any alleged offence. We are commissioning research which will help us decide whether changes are needed in our advice to drivers, but we continue to stress that good lane discipline on motorways is important. I hope that that gives my noble friend some reassurance.
Clause 2 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Criminally negligent driving
.ߞ(1) A person is guilty of an offence if his driving of a mechanically propelled vehiclfe on a road or other public place is criminally negligent.
(2) A person's driving is to be regarded as criminally negligent if in all the circumstances that person actedߞ

(a) unreasonably; or

874

(b) without sensible regard for the safety or well-being of other persons on the road or other public place,

in driving in the manner in which he did.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This amendment touches on consideration of the concepts which are developed in Clauses 1 to 3. It is a little complicated and I beg the indulgence of the Committee if I take a little time seeking to explain why we have put down this new clause. It introduces into the Bill the concept of criminally negligent driving. As I have indicated, it enables us to test whether the new offences which are set out in Clauses 1 to 3 achieve the objectives which both the North Report and the Government White Paper sought to attain.
I want to make it clear at the outset that it is not our purpose to question the underlying principles of Clauses 1 to 3. We are anxious to determine whether the most effective means of implementing those principles has been deployed, because we are not the only ones to have serious reservations about the likely effectiveness of the new offences.
Those issues were canvassed at the Committee stage in another place. Reading the response of the Minister to the amendments which were tabled on that occasion, I have to say that it was less than satisfactory. Consequently, I believe that it is perfectly proper to pursue those concerns further.
Perhaps I may start with the objectives set out by North and in particular the second principle in the report's recommendations. It was said:
"The law will be at its most effective when it is seen to be laying down necessary and reasonable standards for road user behaviour. We have therefore tried, in the changes we are proposing, to make the content of the law accessible and clear to the average road user, and we believe that clarity in the legislation should be backed up by a clear and persuasive presentation of the law's requirements to the public in order to obtain the maximum level of voluntary compliance".
That is very well put indeed and would govern the considerations of any new offences that fall to this House to consider.
What are the anxieties that we wish to express about the new offences? First, the creation of an offence which is specifically linked to the consequences of an actߞthat is to say, causing death-gives rise to some concern. Secondly, the criteria used for defining the new, more serious offence of dangerous driving and of driving which falls far below that of a competent and careful driver are novel concepts which certainly require very careful examination. As I said, they give rise to some anxiety.
As to the first area of concern, it is highly controversial, to say the least, to seek to establish the principle that driving offences should mirror the consequences of the driving. That was a matter very properly discussed in considerable detail in the North Report. Although the report recommended that separate offences in relation to causing death should be kept, it recognised that there were strong, very respectable legal arguments against that idea. In particular there was the view that such an offence might be seen as downgrading cases where no death arises and further the view that:
"it is improper to create a greater liability based on the consequences which may to a degree be fortuitous".

875
Given the nature of the debate that was canvassed in North, I express some surprise that those points were given so little attention in the White Paper. In effect, all that was said there was:
"The Government agrees that there needs to be a stronger response: to the tragic outcome of the driver's actions and therefore proposes to introduce a new and more serious offence'.
That did not do justice to the argument. One has to ask why the White Paper was so dismissive of the issues which were genuinely and properly raised.
So serious questions arise. Is it not a fact that serious injury can lead to more pain, anguish and heartbreak, particularly when the victim is permanently maimed rather than killed? Should not the deterrent factor relate to the propensity to kill or injure rather than to the actual outcome which may arise in any specific case?
As to the second area of concern, the North Report advised very strongly against using the term "dangerous driving". The report states:
"It would run the risk of the reintroduction into the law of problems which led to the deletion of that term from the Road Traffic Act of 1972".
So the essential question is: will the new offence of dangerous driving encompass in practice all those types of driving which North envisaged should be caught Put which are not caught by the present offence of reckless driving? Again I quote from North, because what was said was very important:
"We have in mind such activities as driving excessively fast for the prevailing road or traffic conditions, or driving in an aggressive or intimidatory fashion which might involve, for example, sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or persistently driving much too close to a vehicle in front".
Those are the matters about which North was troubled.
At the Committee stage in another place, the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, asserted that aberrant acts would qualify as dangerous driving under Clause 1. When pressed on the matter he went on to say:
"It is important that a proper distinction be maintained between the offences of 'dangerous driving' and 'careless, and inconsiderate driving'. It is impossible to state categorically that an act is either 'dangerous' or 'careless', as it depends on the facts Of each case".ߞ[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/91; col. 25.]
Perhaps I may say that from my point of view in moving this amendment that was an extremely helpful response because it makes the case for the new clause. The real weakness and problem of the law as it stands is a failure to draw a satisfactory distinction between reckless and careless driving. That is represented in the everyday experiences of many lawyers who practise in the criminal courts.
Is it not likely that precisely similar problems will arise because of the distinction between dangerous and careless driving in that decisions about the degree of blame or seriousness of a particular act will have to be judged against the particular circumstances. As has been intimated earlier, one cannot provide in legislation for all the various permutations that exist.
Criminally negligent driving was considered by the North Review. The report gave two important arguments in favour. First, there was the objective nature of the test:
876
"It covers the driver who thinks about the risk and decides to take it, the driver who does not bother to think about it and the driver who does think but also thinks foolishly that there is no risk".
The second point that was made was that the offence is not linked to particular circumstances or results. Why then, having regard to the formidable way in which the point was made by North, was the approach rejected in that report? I believe that the reason is that when North analysed criminal negligence it focused on a draft criminal code which proposed the definition of criminal negligenceߞI quote from the draft codeߞas conduct which is:
"a very serious deviation from the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person".
North went on to argue that the very serious deviation test could perpetuate the problems arising from the reluctance of the courts to include cases of bad as opposed to very bad driving within the meaning of reckless driving. I think it right to add that that draft criminal code was never adopted and the very serious deviation test is not proposed in relation to the new clause.
In my submission, North was right to be concerned about the test. However, that concern is far more relevant to the "far below" test set out in the new offence than to the new clause. The second reason that North gave was rather curious; that new case law would have to develop. That is right. It is equally right of the new offences. Indeed that represents an argument against any change whatever. I therefore find it an extraordinary argument.
The third reason given by North was that although a single offence has the force of logic because bad driving is bad drivingߞthat is to say, it is essentially indivisibleߞit was thought that the courts would be given too broad a discretion and would therefore risk greater inconsistency of treatment of like offenders. However, our experience seems to be the other way when seeking to differentiate between various categories of driving in the relevant Acts of Parliament.
My conclusion is this. I suggest that we abandon the effort to differentiate between levels of offence. The new clause makes such provision. I urge the creation of a single offence which extends to all circumstances of driving. It would then be left to the prosecution to decide how to proceed in each individual case in the light of the individual circumstances. The question of sentence would be appropriately reflected in the event of conviction.
We propose that the offence should be triable summarily or on indictment before a jury. The prosecution would have a hand in that. The court would make the ultimate determination. Our wish is to ensure that the Bills avoids what I call the pitfalls of previous multitier offences and the potential injustice which can accompany charges linked to the outcome of an action. I therefore urge the Committee to support the new clause. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: We are grateful to the noble Lord for the very careful way in which he has put forward his view of the need for the amendment. However, having

877
listened to him carefully I am sorry to have to say that, first, I do not think his amendment achieves the purposes which he describes and wants. Secondly, it seems to me that what he has put forward overlaps to a great extent what is already in Clause 2 of the Bill. Indeed, if he analysed the amendment the effect of it is to a great extent identical with Clause 2.
It is a rather complicated matter. However, let me do my best to explain the view that I have just expressed. The noble Lord took a lot of trouble, having had the opportunity to work the matter out beforehand. I now have to explain the answer to it having merely listened to him. I view the matter in this way. First, subsection (1) of the amendment states that,
"A person is guilty of an offence if his driving … is criminally negligent".
The expression "criminally negligent" brings us to an in-between stage of dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention or consideration to other users of the road.
At present when people are charged with offences of driving without due care and attention and driving without consideration they frequently plead guilty. They are not obliged to attend court and many people do not do so. But people will not readily wish to have recorded against them a finding that they have been criminally negligent. If the noble Lord's offence were added to the Bill there would be relatively few pleas of guilty and people would attend court to contest cases. I do not say that that in itself is an objection to the clause. If what the noble Lord proposes is right, we should not be afraid of that consequence. I must grant that point. However, this is a new expression which people will find unwelcome.
I turn to subsection (2) of the amendment which describes the substance of the offence of being criminally negligent. The first example given is that the person acted "unreasonably". With my limited intelligence I find it difficult to distinguish between that and either driving without due care and attention or driving without reasonable consideration, both of which are covered already by Clause 2 of the Bill. To that extent in substance the new clause adds nothing.
Let us consider paragraph (b), which states,
"without sensible regard for the safety or well-being of other persons on the road or other public place".
Again, I find that extremely close to the expression in Clause 2 of the Bill which rewrites Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988ߞa consolidation Act. The phrase,
"without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place"
overlaps. I can see no difference of importance or substance between what the noble Lord proposes and what is in the last part of Clause 2 of the Bill. Therefore, without advancing any further, the new clause has the disadvantage of introducing a concept of being criminally negligent and overlaps to a great extent what is already in the present law as rewritten in Clause 2 of the Bill. Therefore, I would not expect my noble friend to accept the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Is it only the act of driving that is covered, or would someone driving a car which is in a dangerous condition and could result in an accident also be covered by the amendment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall reply later to the entirety of the debate. However, in my view it would.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: First, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that this is a complicated matter. I am very conscious that, unlike my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am not a lawyer. Therefore I am at a disadvantage when considering these matters. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the detailed way in which he introduced the amendment. Obviously it will require further reading on my part. However, I do not believe that there is a case for creating a new bad driving offence based on the concept of criminal negligence. I am not convinced that in the light of the Bill's reforms there will remain any gap in the law which needs to be filled. My noble friend Lord Renton made that point.
I remind Members of the Committee that many of the provisions in Part I of the Bill, especially those relating to the creation of new and revised driving offences, are based on the recommendations of the major review of road traffic law carried out by the North Committee.
The North Committee looked at the general structure of road traffic law and considered a number of alternatives such as a more detailed hierarchy of offences. Its conclusion, which the Government accept, was that the broad structure of general bad driving offencesߞfor example, the reckless and careless offencesߞshould not be changed although it recommended the reformulation of reckless driving. It also considered the Law Commission's suggestion in its draft criminal code for an offence to replace reckless driving based on a test of criminal negligence in which the manner of driving showed a serious deviation from the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person. In spite of some obvious merits, notably the fact that it sets an objective test and goes wider than the existing English interpretation of "reckless", it rejected it on the grounds that it did not fully define what is meant by criminal negligence. Leaving that to the courts would run the risk of a restrictive definition and the possibility of different interpretation north and south of the border.
I recognise that the proposed new clause contains a fuller definition of "criminally negligent" driving but this particular formulation fails to distinguish the extent to which the driving falls short of a reasonable standard. It would therefore overlap with the existing offence of careless or inconsiderate driving in Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That offence is defined as driving:
"without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road".
Clause 2 of the Bill will extend the scope of this offence to other public places. I do not consider that the definition of criminally negligent driving set out in the proposed new clause would add substantially to the

879
Section 3 offence. Furthermore, it would lead to confusion as to the appropriate charge in different circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the question of serious injury. I sympathise with the view that the driver who causes serious injury when driving dangerously may cause as much pain and suffering as the driver who causes a death. I heartily condemn such driving. However, we must be careful that our concern for the consequences of an incident does not lead us to lose sight of the need for the court to concentrate on the offender's culpability and to consider the circumstances of the individual case in deciding on the appropriate penalty.
Causing death is an exception. For many years the law has recognised the particular horror of a driver who causes a death, but it is difficult to extend that principle. What is a serious injury for this purpose? It would be difficult to define on the face of the statute, and the definition would doubtless become a matter of protracted legal dispute each time the offence was charged. The point was carefully considered by the North Committee which accepted that there were arguments on both sides of the case but concluded by recommending against a specific offence. I concur with that conclusion.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be assured that our intention in reformulating the bad driving offences was to meet as closely as possible the recommendations of the North Report (recommendation 20). The test is based on the standard of driving and it avoids the subjective element of the current reckless offence.
What will dangerous driving cover in Clause 1? It has proved difficult to secure convictions in England and Wales for the existing reckless driving offences because of the need for juries to be satisfied as to the driver's state of mind at the time of the offence. The new offences are based more firmly on the standard of driving. The driving must fall far below what would be expected by a competent and careful driver. It must be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. This is a reasonable person test; we no longer need to inquire into the mind of the driver. Moreover, it is intended that the requirement of the offence should be fulfilled where the manner of driving is dangerous even if it can be shown that no person or property is put at risk in the particular case. It should henceforth be possible to secure convictions in many cases which in the public's mind clearly and reasonably constitute dangerous driving but where the existing offences have not proved satisfactory. That would fulfil the recommendations at the North Report.
If one offence of criminally negligent driving were to replace dangerous driving and careless or inconsiderate driving all drivers would face the same maximum penaltyߞfor example, at present causing death by reckless driving carries a penalty of five years' irnprisonmentߞand that would be inappropriate in many cases. There would also be significant procedural problems; for example, if all defendants
880
were to elect trial by jury in the Crown Court which would be possible if the offence were to be triable either way.
The offences of dangerous driving and careless or inconsiderate driving will in future provide sufficient scope for bringing appropriate charges where bad driving has occurred. The seriousness of the charge will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. To add a further offence which introduces the concept of criminal negligence into road traffic law is unnecessary and would create confusion. Therefore I cannot recommend the new clause to the Committee.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have participated in this interesting debate. If the amendment were to become part of the law the existing offences must be amended. My purpose was not to complicate the issue unduly, but to canvas the ideas at this stage and to hear the response of the Committee, and in particular that of the Minister.
I turn to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I always respect him; he speaks from a wealth of experience in the courts. He appears to have missed the main distinctions between my proposed new clause and the new offences which are created by the Government's proposals in relation to Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill. I shall return to that matter in a moment. It is not an entirely respectable argument to say that there would be relatively few pleas of guilty. My experience in the criminal courts is now a little distant but I believe that too many people are able to plead guilty to driving without due care in circumstances which justify a more major offence. That might be the noble Lord's experience too but he must speak for himself. Consequently it is an argument of convenience which ought not to be a major concern for the Committee.
In relation to offences of this kind, particularly where serious injury or even death occurs and where there are serious consequences, the purpose should be to deter. Indeed, that goes to the heart of the considerations to which we shall turn later. They are reflected in the Government's approach to the matter and in ours. It is true that if one were to isolate from the arguments that I have put forward the references that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made to subsection (2) one would see points that were not massively capable of being distinguished from the Government's provisions. However, there is one distinction. As has been widely canvassed, the Government have taken a different view, as did the North Committee, when reflecting on the issues. However, we believe that there is a strong case for arguing for a single offence. Most specifically, in our judgment it is necessary to avoid creating an offence which is specifically linked to a consequence of the act; the act being the causing of death.
It is true that in the past there has been legislation of that kind. However, we are considering the whole matter and there is every good reason to inject the notions that I have sought to introduce into the debate when considering the approach that we should now take.

881
If the Minister believes seriously that my proposal will introduce protracted legal arguments but that as regards his new offences everything will be hunkydory and that the Court of Appeal will never be worried about those matters, then let us consider the notion of "far below". That is a novel concept. I suspect that the Minister's expectations of a fair ride, and no challenges or complexity will be sadly disappointed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I did not say that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister did not say that but it is implicit in everything he said. He said that my proposals are inordinately complex and will lead to a joyride for lawyers. Therefore, I merely mentioned the concept of "far below". He must not run away with the idea that it will all be easy and right nor that it will all work out in practice. I am convinced that that will be far from the case.
I do not intend to press the matter to a Division. Before the Report stage I shall reflect on what the Minister and other Members of the Committee have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should like the Minister to explain subsection (3) of Clause 3. That says that subsections (1) (b) and (c), which are alcohol-related offences for failing to give a specimen:
"shall not apply in relation to a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle other than a motor vehicle".
For example, does that mean that a person driving a steam-roller under the influence of alcohol-a rather riotous thoughtߞ would be immune or is it, as I suspect, that there is an alternative way of dealing with that? On the face of it, it is rather surprising to see that subsection but no doubt, as always, my noble friend has a good explanation.
Lord Renton: Do horse-drawn vehicles come into this? In the past there have been notorious cases of people causing injury to other people by driving a horse-drawn vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I believe that I may have to write to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter with an explanation in greater detail than I am able to give him now. There are certain categories of mechanically propelled vehicle to which this clause does not apply. That does not mean that, for example, it is legal to drive a steam-roller while under the influence of drink. Such a person could be caught under other provisions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend be good enough to let me know what are those provisions under which such a person could be charged? I should hate to think that we may be excluding that rather amusing possibility.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I said, I shall have to write to my noble friend and I shall include that in my reply.
As regards a horse-drawn vehicle, I am not sure whether that would be included in the definition of a mechanically propelled vehicle. I suspect that it would not because it is being propelled by a horse. I know that it is possible to be charged with driving a horse-drawn vehicle while under the influence of alcohol just as it is possible as regards driving a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol. However, I shall write to my noble friend in more detail on that.
In general terms my noble friend will appreciate that breath tests are designed for motor vehicles. However, drivers of go-carts, mechanical diggers and so on can be convicted of driving when unfit.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: It may be that the man is driving the horse but surely the horse cannot be under the influence of drink, or at least I hope not. Who is responsible for the accident?
Lord Renton: Is my noble friend aware that the great Earl of Montrose always gave quantities of beer to his horse?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In law the human being must be responsible for the conduct of whoever or whatever may be hauling the carriage.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Perhaps I may put another conundrum to my noble friend. Will he take into account that some vehicles are now driven by solar panels? Will they be mechanically driven?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am sure that they would be mechanically driven because they require a source of power. It may be solar but it is a source of power just like an internal combustion engine.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should hate to be excluded from the intriguing correspondence and I hope that the Minister will agree to let me have a copy of the engaging letters which he is going to write to his noble friends.
In the course of the Minister's reply, I wondered whether he was going back to the past and confusing horse power with the issue which we are now considering. However a serious point has been raised and I am sure the Minister is right to reflect upon it rather than to give an immediate answer.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Random breath testing at roadside checkpoints
(". In section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted after sub-section (2) the following subsectionsߞ
(2A) The Secretary of State may make provisions, by regulations which shall be subject to approval by each House of Parliament, for roadside checks at which either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles may be stopped by a constable in uniform under section 163 of this Act for the purpose of administering breath tests to their drivers at or near the place where such vehicles are stopped to ascertain whether any offence has been committed under section 4 or 5 of this Act.
(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) above shall provide for any roadside check under sub-section (2A) above to be authorised in writing by a senior police officer and for the display of signs making the purpose of the check clear to road users and for the maintenance of records of the authorisation and of the location, date and time of such checks.
(2C) Regulations under subsection (2A) shall be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to England and Wales and by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Scotland.
(2D) The Secretary of State shall consult with chief officers of police and other organisations on a code of practice for the detailed operation of roadside checks carried out in accordance with the Regulations under subsection (2A).".
The noble Lord said: I should say at the outset that this amendment is intended to apply not to horses or animals but only to human beings.
On Second Reading I attempted to make out a case for random breath testing. That is a matter for the judgment and conscience of Members of the Committee. I said at that stage and I repeat now that I have not asked the Opposition Chief Whip to impose a Whip on this issue for that reason, although I believe that the Government have taken a different view, but that is a matter for the Government.
I believe that there is a very powerful case for random breath testing. In order to put the matter into context, I shall redeploy some of the arguments I raised in order to set the proper backcloth to the debate.
The latest figures I have are those of 1989 which show that one in six accidental road deaths was drink related. The terrible toll was that 22,000 were injured and 840 people were killed. The cost in terms of human suffering is incalculable. There is also a cost to society which is measurable in terms of each fatal accident. I believe that the Government said that each fatal accident costs about £600,000. Consequently, at the very least, that cost could be said to be £365 million per year. I do not believe that that is a major item of anxiety but it is worth recollecting.
Also, far too many people continue to drink and drive. A Gallup poll was conducted by the General Accident Insurance Group in 1990 which revealed that 30 per cent. of all drivers and 41 per cent. of business drivers admitted to drinking and driving. Therefore, the deterrent factor which seemed to appear at first has, to some degree although not entirely, withered on the vine.
There is of course ample precedent for random breath testing along the lines that we are suggesting. That is reflected by the practices that have been deployed in other countries. The practices which have been so deployed appear to show that the random breath testing experiment works. That proposition is sustained overwhelmingly by organisations which have impeccable credentials as regards their ability to speak on these matters. They are the BMA, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport and Safety and Alcohol Concern. Interestingly enough, the National Council for Civil Liberties, which would be the first to complain about any invasion of civil liberties, supports the proposition. The Association of Police Surgeons, the Royal College of Psychiatrists
884
and the police as well support this measure, although they want to go further than we are advising in this case.
The European Committee of High Level Experts on Road Safety supports the proposition. The United Kingdom representative was a Mr. Jim Harrigan, who was a former deputy secretary at the Department of Transport. He must have had appropriately good credentials. Perhaps I may quote from a passage in the report at pages 28 and 29:
"The Experts' Committee consider that the development of campaigns of random alcohol checks is without doubt one of the most effective steps to be taken to improve road safety in the Member States".
It is true that against that very heavy weight of experience and expertise the Government have been able to muster the support of the RAC, which is a perfectly respectable and worthy organisation. They also have the support of the National Licensed Victuallers Association which has campaigned vigorously against this idea, and not altogether surprisingly. The proposition that I have advanced is supported overwhelmingly by public opinion. Among many other tests that have been carried out, that support was revealed in response to the consultation paper put out by the Home Office. Out of the 3,400 replies received to the paper, 3,000 supported random breath tests.
The common denominator in support of this idea is that it is believed that there is a deterrent value and, based on the conclusions reached elsewhere, that that deterrent value would lead to a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries. But, Canute-like, the Government continue to stand against the rising tide in support of random breath testing. In another place Ministers have categorically refused to take steps, and Ministers here have been obliged to say the same thing. But that is not unlike the resistance that once occurred not so long ago to the wearing of seatbelts. More topically, it is not unlike the endeavours of the MCC to exclude women members. That endeavour will fall to the ground in no time at all.
Lord Peston: I think that is a bit optimistic.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend says that that is a bit optimistic. Not even the MCC can prevail against the tide, but that is another matter.
I should like to consider some of the arguments which have been adduced in another place and here against the proposition. It is argued that random breath testing is unnecessary because fewer drivers are drinking and driving. It is argued that we have a better driving record than other countries and so on. The argument about the experience of other countries is of itself not conclusive either in my favour or against. It is difficult to make an exact comparison because there are different factors, different attitudes and different approaches which govern the issues.
I claim that the assertion made by those who say that we have a remarkable record is probably wildly optimistic. Notwithstanding what I have said, Sweden and the Netherlands seem to have lower levels of drinking and driving deaths than occur here. But the

885
important point is that there can be no room for complacency whatever may be the situation as regards the statistics that I have already adduced. In my judgment the suggestion that we do not need to go further is complacent.
There are other factors which it is said render random breath testing unnecessary. It is said that there have been changes in attitude and publicity campaigns. There have been Christmas campaigns and there is also the effect of the media. That is all very good. I do not complain in the least about those factors. I support them. But are they and random breath testing to be regarded as mutually exclusive? Are they not to be regarded as complementary instruments in attacking drinking and driving?
It is said that increased penalties and their severity will do the trick. That argument is misconceived. I am not at all against increasing the penalties. But the fact isߞ and this is the subject of much research-that while far too many drivers here believe that there is little chance of being caught, heavier penalties will not deter the drinking driver. In Sweden, where penalties for excess alcohol reached the ceiling of severity without evidence of deterring the excess alcohol offender, the situation was dramatically changed with the introduction of random breath testing.
Then it is said that random breath testing is an inefficient way of catching drinking drivers and therefore of using police time. The real criterion for dealing with a policy of this kind must be whether we can reduce alcohol-related accidents. When we look at the situation in some other countries we find that random breath testing has had a considerably greater effect on reducing accidents and casualties than targeting offenders alone.
We have heard from the Minister that police powers are already sufficiently extensive to cover this and therefore there is no need for any extension. That is a very strange argument in a way because, while the Government argue that they are against random breath testing in principle, they assert that the police already have the necessary powers. The Government cannot have it both ways. Quite apart from the logical inconsistency, that is not right. The same patterns are not deployed by the police throughout the country.
There appears to be some questioning by police authorities in some parts of the country as to whether what the Government have to say in this regard is right. Therefore they do not deploy the tests that are used elsewhere. In order to sustain the breath tests that they undertake, the police are sometimes driven to invent and engage in pretence in order to enable them to be applied. I do not believe that engaging in pretence is good. It is the very matter that determines that relationships between the police and the public can be impaired. I am against that.
It is argued that too much time would be involved by the police in dealing with this issue rather than dealing with issues that are more generally regarded as crimes. I regard this as crime. I make that clear from the first. The consequences of drinking and driving can be, and often are, absolutely appalling. However, if it is a question of cost and the deployment of the
886
police forces, should we not consider again that statistic to which I referred earlier-the cost to society? That has to be weighed against anything the Minister says in regard to a cost of at least £600 million.
It is probable, I concede, that traffic policing levels will have to be increased, although the situation has not been mirrored in New South Wales or Finland when random breath testing has been introduced. Traffic policing levels have been allowed to dwindle, let me say, over recent years. Therefore the increase in resources which may be necessary in some areas is, I would argue, absolutely right. The fact is that quantifiable benefits to the community would far exceed the known direct costs of making random breath testing work. The allocation of new resources would be cost effective and a good investment.
The next argument to which I refer is that random breath testing would not operate as a deterrent to drinking and driving and would lead to fewer convictions of drunken drivers. The reason why relatively fewer offenders are detected at roadside check points is that random breath testing acts as a deterrent. People have to come into collision with these random breath testing points and of course have to take more care. That is the whole object of the exercise. It is also said that there will be friction between the police and the driving population. I do not believe that a random breath testing system such as we are seeking to introduce here would have that effect. People are against drinking and driving. They would understand. It would avoid the pretence to which I referred earlier.
I dealt with the question of civil liberties on Second Reading. I simply do not believe that the civil liberty of someone being able to drink and perhaps enter into some conjecture as to whether or not he has exceeded the limit or whether he was within the limit is a civil liberty that ought to be preserved at all cost against the civil liberty of ensuring that people who have not taken a drink can drive safely and pedestrians are protected from these people who absorb so much drink. Therefore I believe that that is not an argument to which this Chamber should give serious credit. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that this is a matter on which there are no conceivable grounds for complacency. I know that the view which he has argued, if he will allow me to say, so effectively just now is a view that is very widely held by a great many people in all parties and in all sections of the country. It is therefore an issue which I am sure the Committee will wish to consider carefully and on which it will wish to weigh carefully the arguments used. However, before I venture direct comments on that point I must take the noble Lord up on his historical inaccuracy when referring to the Government's Canute-like attitude to this issue. The noble Lord may recall that, by standing beside the sea and asking the tide to come no further, his late Majesty demonstrated to those who had foolishly said that the King had complete and overwhelming power what nonsense they were talking. If the noble Lord was referring to that, his late

887
Majesty was absolutely right. He was also extremely sensible and extremely persuasive. Therefore to use him as a term of abuse to the Government-because of the view the Government have taken on this matterߞis somewhat a perversion of history.
The amendment itself is rather curious because it provides for random stopping of either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles. How the sample would be selected, if this power were given, of itself raises some quite important questions. Would it be all big cars? Would it be all small cars? Would it be all cars apparently driven by young people? How would a sample be selected? I should like to put the argument nonetheless on broader grounds. Why is it thought that the knowledge that the police have this power would, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, act as a deterrent to drivers from drinking and driving'? Everybody knows nowadays that if one is caught driving under the influence of drink the penalties are serious. To anyone of any public position the publicity is extremely tiresome and harmful. Everybody knows that. Why should the thought of the stopping of either a sample or the whole lot, add appreciably to the deterrent factor? I do not follow. People know that if they drink before driving and anything happens they will be in for very serious trouble. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will not enter into the debate at this stage, save to say this: what we are seeking to do by this provision is to supplement the existing law, not replace it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That does not seem to sustain the argument that the deterrent effect of the law will be substantially improved by introducing this provision. People know that if they have had drink and an incident occurs while they are driving they are in serious trouble. They know that perfectly well. Why should the separate factor of being the victim of a sample stop, or of a complete stop, be a greater deterrent? That does not seem to me to be at all convincing.
One comes therefore to the question of what such a provision will do to relations between the motoring public and the police. I attach very great importance to that. I like the feeling that when one sees a police officer one is pleased and reassured to know that he is there. However, if a perfectly sober driver is liable to be stopped and subjected, first, to a certain amount of delay, and, secondly, to a somewhat humiliating process of being tested, it is likely very seriously to damage relations between the motorist and the police.
The noble Lord said, and I agree with him, that we want fuller policing of the roads. I believe that considerably more police should be available on the motorways. However, they should be available to deal with actual incidents of bad driving, accidents and all the various chances and changes of the road. If one makes the police the potential enemy of a perfectly sober driver who is stopped and subjected to a somewhat humiliating routine, one will very seriously damage those relations and make the motorist feel, "Oh, there are those wretched police. Now they are probably going to stop us". Given the weight of traffic
888
that we now have on our motorways, particularly at weekends and in the rush hour, if any substantial number is to be stopped for testsߞthe majority of which, I think it is accepted, will produce nothingߞone will add very seriously to the traffic congestion and therefore once again to the ill temper and ill will towards the police.
It seems to me that the onus is upon those who argue that the present law is inadequate to discharge that onus. I have no reason to believe that the present legal position is inadequately strong. Motorists increasingly realise the serious consequences of driving when they have taken even a moderate quantity of drink. That fact is well realised. I also believe that, for practical purposes with the various other powers that the police have, it is quite unnecessary to make this addition. As making such an addition would impair relations with the police, I suggest to Members of the Committee that we should follow the previous decisions taken in another place and elsewhere and reject the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. I should like to begin with a personal view. I have to say that I personally enjoy the fruits of the grape and related beverages in appropriate circumstances. There is some evidence that alcohol in moderation can make a significant contribution to human well-being. There is even some recent evidence emerging to suggest that in moderation it may have a protective effect against coronary heart disease.
However, my personal decision not to drive after drinking made several years ago was, I can assure Members of the Committee, not wholly related to the fact that any doctor convicted in the United Kingdom of driving with more than the prescribed level of alcohol on the breath is automatically reported to the president of the General Medical Council. That was an office which I held at the time. That particular decision was based upon my growing realisation of the appalling roll of death, injury and bereavement caused all too often to innocent persons in this country by drinking drivers.
I wholly accept some of the arguments put forward so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, I believe that there is one that he may conceivably have overlooked. The present law requires that, for the police to stop a motorist and invite him to undergo a breath test, there must be reasonable cause for suspicion that he may have been drinking. It is my viewߞand one which I have to say is shared by the British Medical Associationߞthat that immediately introduces in the present law a confrontational situation. If the public were to recognise that random breath testing was part of our law, then, contrary to the noble Lord's view, I believe that that would not impair but that it would ultimately improve the relations between the public and the police.
Drinking and driving still remains the single main cause of death and injury on our roads. The Department of Transport estimates, as the noble

889
Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that over 22,000 casualties each year can be attributed to alcohol at an annual cost to the National Health Service of £600 million.
In countries such as Finland and Australia, random breath testing has reduced the number of casualties and fatalities on the roads. Moreover, in New South Wales, the public has responded well to testing by teams stationed by the roadside which, combined with a public information programme, has been successful. In the four years following the introduction of random breath tests in that country, the average number of alcohol-related fatal and serious accidents has been reduced by 35 per cent., and the savings in health and social security benefit costs have been 20 times the cost of implementing the scheme.
I firmly believe in the proposal. I understand from a recent conversation that this view is not only shared by the British Medical Association, and many other organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred, but that it is also supported by many other organisations. Moreover, I also understand that the Automobile Association has recently expressed the same view.
If we were to accept the amendment in Committee it would send a signal to the world at large and to the country that we take very seriously this growing toll of people being injured, killed or maimed on our roads, and that this is one way in which we can hope to reduce that appalling incidence.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am sorry that I missed some of the first moments of this debate. However, I should like to say a few words in answer to what has just been said. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I do not drink and drive. By that I mean I do not drive at all after drinking, as of set purpose. I accept wholly what the noble Lord said about the seriousness of the number of casualties which may occur if people do so. However, I am perfectly convinced that the amendment is unnecessary. I believe that the noble Lord has been misled by his perhaps insufficient acquaintance with what actually goes on on the ground. It is true that before a breath test is administered a policeman must have reason to believe that alcohol is within the body of the driver. But it is not the only reason why a motorist can be stopped.
To begin with, a motorist can be stopped if he is committing a moving traffic offence. It is thereafter that the policeman can form the idea that alcohol is within the body. A moving traffic offence includes, of course, breaking the 30 mph speed limit. Anyone who thinks that that limit is observed generally at present has only to go out into the streets and watch the cars going by. In fact, anyone can be stopped who is in motion.
Moreover, the police have the power to ask for one's driving licence and insurance certificate and thus form some idea, as the documents are being examined, as to whether there is alcohol in the body. The impression that the noble Lord seems to have that the policeman is driven to form some conclusion about the state of alcohol in the breath before he stops a
890
motorist bears no relation to the truth. I should point out that I have had quite considerable professional experience of cases in which breath tests have been administered and where other alcohol-related offences when driving have been committed, and also some ߞalthough not quite so muchߞjudicial experience.
I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee for any length of time. However, I should like to put the matter in the form of a parable. I am a very bad pheasant shot, as many of my noble friends (and those who are more acquainted with my social habits) will probably be able to confirm. But I am rather more likely to hit the bird if I aim at it than if I just fire my gun into the air in the hope that something will come down. The number of our policemen is not unlimited. They have many other duties to perform, quite apart from the possibility that they may stop every member of the public on any occasion to see whether he has any alcohol on his breath. Indeed, they may have to search for more serious criminals or have better reasons than that for stopping motorists. I suggest that an aimed shot is rather better than one shot into the ground. I regard the amendment as dangerous and wholly unnecessary.
Lord Tordoff: There is no question that my noble friends from these Benches shall have anything other than a vote according to their consciences. In other words, this is not a matter for party distinction. The vast phalanx which sits behind me will now therefore be making up its own mind!
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who engaged the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the matter of King Canute. He was perfectly right in what he said; indeed, had he not done so, I should have said precisely the same, although less well no doubt. I say that because my territorial title is Knutsford in the county of Cheshire which, as people will know, is Canutesford. Therefore, I have a particular affection for that great and noble King.
I said on Second Reading that I was an agnostic on the subject and was waiting to be persuaded. As Members of the Committee may guess, I have received a great deal of correspondence, as they will have, from various organisations on this important amendment. Having thought about the matter at some considerable length, I have come down in favour of the amendment. I do not seek to persuade my colleagues. They can make up their own minds. They probably have done so, which may be why they are not here. I have come down in favour of the amendment, although I listened with great care to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and which will doubtless be made by the Minister in due course.
It does not seem to me that the arguments that those noble Lords adduce against the amendment are strong enough to overcome two simple facts. The first was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and it is that we are talking about serious criminal behaviour. It is serious in the sense that it causes grievous bodily harm to many people. I find the argument about it causing friction with the police difficult to accept, because the police, on the whole,

891
are in favour of the amendment. We should listen to what they have to say. I cannot believe that being tested i i the way suggested is likely to be worse than being tested in the way that people are tested at the moment. That brings me to my next point.
On the one hand, people say that they do not want random breath testing and, on the other, they say that we have random breath testing at the moment, so why bother. If we have random breath testing, let us call it random breath testing, let us ensure that it is random breath testing, and let us ensure that it is on the face of the Bill, and is not done by devices that the police may be forced to introduce to carry out the amendment's intention. That is what is happening at the moment.
The noble and learned Lord is right, of course: the police cannot stop people on suspicion of their having alcohol in their bodies, but they can stop them for a moving traffic offence. A moving traffic offence can be their suspicion that the driver is not driving fast enough. That causes them to suspect that something is going wrong. The vehicle may have a cracked tail light or something similar. There are a thousand different ways by which a policeman can find justification for stopping a car if he wishes to do so. Basically, I cannot accept that the law should be brought into some disrepute by relying upon a device such as I have described to introduce random breath testing by the back door.
The final point we must consider is whether the introduction of systematic breath testing will reduce the number of deaths on the road. It is my belief, after due consideration, that it will so reduce death and injury on the roads, and because of that, I support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for so comprehensively exposing the arguments in favour of random breath testing. I have never heard it done better. The argument, as he will be the first to recognise, is very much a matter of balance, My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made the point that police capacity is limited and always will be. It could be extended a little, but it costs a great deal to do so. The police have many other duties of great importance to carry out in protecting the public. What we are considering is how police power, authority and spread can best be used.
My noble and learned friend made a cogent point with his metaphor about shooting, or not shooting, pheasants. A random shot in the air is not likely to do much good. What has evolved is a type of instinctive arrangement. Over the past 10 years, the police have developed a practice of intensifying tests over the Christmas period. They now carry out about three times as many tests as they did 10 years ago. That practice is accepted by the public. The law just covers it, as my noble and learned friend with his great authority explained. People as a whole accept it as a convention that at Christmas time, for a week or two, there will be an intensification of testing. Everyone thinks mat that is a good thing, and so it has been accepted.
892
As a result, during those 10 years there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of deaths caused by drinking and driving. To a considerable extent that must be due to the practice of intensification at Christmas time when, instead of the random shot in the air described by my noble and learned friend, the police shoot at some birds they are pretty sure they can bring down. Some of those people will have been drinking and driving. They will be caught and prosecuted. That is the deterrent in which we are all interested.
I share with other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Walton, with whom I am glad to find myself agreeing as usual, the view that we all want to reduce drinking and driving. We all recognise that there are still some people who drink and drive, and perhaps there always will be, unless they are taken off the road altogether. But we cannot do that at one fell swoop.
We must consider whether the available police capacity is being used most effectively at the moment, using present methods. There is no doubt that substantial improvement has been achieved over the past 10 years and is likely to continue. Last Christmas, breath tests increased by 15 per cent. over the previous year. The number of positive testsߞthat is to say, the number of people who were found to have been drinking and drivingߞhad decreased by 10 per cent. It indicates that the present approach, although gradual and not completely logicalߞit is not as logical as the random breath testing the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, advocatesߞis succeeding, and in an irrational way probably suits us.
There is no doubt that formal roadside tests carried out throughout the country would offend many people. When public opinion polls show that most people are in favour of random breath testing, I believe that they are thinking of the Christmas time tests which most people accept as reasonable. There is a big risk that offence would be caused and that important police public relations would be stirred up, whereas the present system is accepted. There is a type of convention that it is reasonable that people who are foolish enough to drink and drive at Christmas time should be apprehended.
The Government have the balance of the argument right. What is being done is succeeding, and has succeeded considerably. It is carrying public opinion with it. That is important. The system will continue progressively to achieve the results which we want. It would be a pity further to restrict the liberty of the subject as we should have to do if we were to institute general random breath tests at the roadside by stopping all, or some, vehicles. It would be a pity to go further than we have to if the present methods are succeeding. I believe that they are, and so I shall support my noble friend.
Viscount Caldecote: We all agree that driving under the influence of drink is a serious crime. However, it is always difficult to maintain the right balance between methods of detecting and deterring crime and the reasonable convenience of the public and in this case attitudes to the police. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to that most eloquently.

893
Recently I had the interesting first experience of being breathalysed when I was driving back from a dinner wearing a dinner jacket. I am glad to say that the test was satisfactory. The policemen concerned were polite and efficient. They warned me, as is necessary under the Road Traffic Act and other legislation. I asked why they had stopped me. They said that the main reason was that my trafficator turning lights had been operating from time to time when I was turning neither to the right nor the left. I believe that that is because the same lever in my car operates the headlamp dipper in one direction and the trafficator in the other. The police stopped me clearly for that reason and I was breathalysed. They were polite and afterwards they waved and said goodnight.
I felt slightly annoyed at having been stopped and it caused me to think about the problem of random breath testing. I came to the conclusion that they were perfectly within their rights to stop meߞI suppose that it was a type of random breath testing. After a lot of thought, as is usual after an occasion like that, I came to the conclusion that the police have adequate means of enforcement. To go further along the lines of the amendment would not be wise. As my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Nugent pointed out, the police have many other tasks to perform. It is a matter of the best use of manpower and maintaining good relations and attitudes between the public and the police.
I believe that to accept the amendment would therefore not make the best use of police manpower; it would not do much good. The present arrangements such as have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, are satisfactory and the best balance that we can achieve. Therefore I shall oppose the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I was chairman of the committee of the Cabinet in 1965 and 1966 which dealt with transport policies under the Wilson Administration. We agonised over this for a long time in the committee. We had a much longer discussion on it in Cabinet probably than on any other subject. In the end, we decided to favour the random test and included it in a White Paper published on a wide range of transport matters in 1966.
The late Tom Fraser was the Minister of Transport at the time. Much to the perturbation of Whitehall, I was chairman of the Cabinet committee on transport policy. The Minister of Transport was not made chairman; nor was the Home Secretary appointed chairman of the Home Affairs Committee in the Labour Government; and nor was the Minister of Agriculture made chairman of the farm price review under the Labour Government. I was the professional chairman of that administration. I was chairman of eight Cabinet committees at the same time and my grasp of the general policy of the government was greater thanߞI was going to say with great respect ߞthat of the Prime Minister himself.
Returning to the serious side of the subject, the two difficulties that we dreaded most about this and had to overcome were, first, relations with the police. It was a long time ago, when we were less certain about the conduct of the police and much less certain about the
894
reaction of the public to greater interference by the police with the freedom of the citizen. We decided that we would have to try to cope with it. I submit now that the relationship between the police and the motoring public on transport matters is much better than it was then. People understand the need for discipline. We have introduced many controls of traffic and imposed duties on the police far beyond anything contemplated in 1965–66.
The second difficulty was the effect of the random test on the public. We could not get rid of the feeling that presidents of the Band of Hope might feel affronted if they were stopped without reasonable cause. They might become a little haughty about their lifelong abstinence from strong drink. I was a member of the Band of Hope. However, we thought that if the public only knew how important it was, they would put up with it. We felt that the question, "Why me?" from people on the road was a response that had to be overcome.
Thus we came to examine the reasonable cause to suspect that a person had been imbibing alcohol to excess. The first thing we had to do was to assure the drinks trade, or at least the proprietors and managers of licensed premises, that the police would not stand guard on the car parks of those premises to find, without much difficulty, motorists who had been imbibing alcohol. The police were given no instructions, but we rather suspected that they would probably not accept the excuse that people had been drinking lemonade for five hours and were still sober.
The presumption that one goes into a pub to have a real drink was so strong that we wondered how to overcome it. Therefore, the police were barred under the policy that was adopted later; it was felt that they should be barred from standing guard over the car parks of public houses. In my constituency when the selective test came in, all the pubs on the moors and in the country villages were emptied almost overnight. All the drinkers in my constituency went straight into the pubs from which people could walk home. That was a good sign of how seriously people were taking the matter, but it was not good for the legitimate trade in the beauty spots in my constituency. We had to overcome that.
Apropos the speech of my noble friend Lord Walton, I thought that any motoring offence for which a policeman stopped a motorist gave him the right to apply the breath test. From memory, I believe that the subject had to be under reasonable suspicion not only of having been drinking. If the policeman stopped a motorist for not having his lights on, he could say, "While we are about it, please breathe into this bag". It probably did not improve the motorist's temper, but at least it was an excuse to administer the breath test.
People understand the gravity of death on the roads. I confirm the hideous consequences which I have seen for myself of accidents through drinking and driving. The mutilation of people, the time they have to spend in hospitals and the disabilities with which they come out are so dreadful that for it to be

895
inflicted not by accident but by sheer negligence in not keeping oneself fit to drive is a crime. We should deal with it accordingly.
The legislation on random testing that was approved by the Labour Cabinet never came to fruition because Tom Fraser ceased to be the Minister of Transport. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, succeeded him and she complained that the Transport Bill which she was handed was already so enormous and controversial that, with this additional difficulty, it would not be politically desirable, nor could it be accommodated with sufficient parliamentary time to wrangle it all through. So it was dropped, but the selective test remained.
I support the amendment. I wish to make one suggestion, a new idea. Should we, when making regulations, have the power to bring about a selective introduction of random testing? Do we have to include the whole country, or is there any possibility of placing areas on trial and imposing random tests if the ratio of drink driving convictions rises above the average? I suppose that under regulations we would have the power to impose this provision nationally at certain seasons of the year. For example, at Christmas.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that such measures have had a good effect. I doubt whether the Minister is right in saying that the police already have such powers. I do not believe that that is the case; but I may be wrong about that. I believe the police get away with imposing such powers at Christmas because people are willing to co-operate.
I have put forward a few ideas. This discussion is an indication of how long it takes to resolve parliamentary and public opinion on matters which seem relatively elementary and simple. That has been my experience of such matters. This is the first occasion that I have spoken on this subject since the time I finally persuaded the Cabinet in 1966 to agree to breath testing.
6 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I wish to oppose the amendment. Naturally, I am no less against drink driving than anyone else. However, I think the amendment is totally unnecessary because the police already can and do stop motorists without cause. They do this in my part of the world, although perhaps they do it illegally. At a pub that is situated near my house the police take the licence numbers of cars that are parked at the pub. Recently the publican was driving some customers back to their homes. He passed a police car twice and he was asked to stop. The policeman asked him why he was going backwards and forwards. The publican was not committing any kind of an offence.
I was stopped after I had attended a hunt. It was assumed that I had been at the flask all day. In fact I had not had a single sip. The policeman stopped me for no apparent reason and breathalysed me. At the moment the police appear to be able to stop any motorist without giving any reason for doing so. Therefore it is pointless to establish additional legislative provisions on this matter. The question of co-operation with the police is of great importance.
896
The job of the police becomes more and more difficult as crime continually increases. Co-operation between the public and the police is essential and nothing should be done that may jeopardise that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Lord will forgive me saying so, I did not understand the logic of his speech. He appeared to be saying that there is no need to change the law because the law is clear on the matter. However, he then said that if the law was changed, it would lead to a substantial deterioration in relations between the general public and the police. I do not understand that argument at all.
I have one or two points to make on this matter. It is not an easy question at all. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, there has been a change in police attitudes on this matter over the past 20 years. At one stage the police undoubtedly were not in favour of an amendment of the kind that has been moved today. However, there has now been a substantial change in attitude on their part, and the reason for that is the clear evidence of the appalling consequences of people driving cars while under the influence of drink.
I again refer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Do we all imagine that at Christmas the police wait for a driver to commit a moving traffic offence before they stop him? I wonder how many Members of the Committee believe that. In some police areas that may be true; but I believe that in the overwhelming majority of police forces chief officers of police take the attitude that at a season when there are national advertising campaigns drawing attention to the dangers of driving when under the influence of drink, the police should stop a substantial number of motorists, some of whom have not committed a moving traffic offence. We should not have to continue with humbug of this kind any longer. There should be a clearly expressed statutory provision which makes it clear what the police powers are at the moment. I do not believe that is the case at the moment, and that is why, on balance, I favour the amendment. I do not believe that the present law is at all satisfactory.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to support the amendment. I shall not repeat all the arguments that I made on Second Reading as many different points of view have been put forward today.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the police can stop motorists for any incident. That is true but, technically and legally, there must have been an incident. The police cannot just stop a motorist because they suspect he has been drinking. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, appreciates how much court time is wasted discussing not whether a driver has been over the limitߞthat is clearly shown on the evidenceߞbut whether or not the police had the right to stop the motorist. A lot of court time is wasted on such discussions. A police officer is asked why he stopped a motorist and the client's solicitor or his counsel will go on and on and turn what should be an open and shut case into a whole morning's court hearing.

897
There has been a great deal of comment about police manpower. To listen to that one would think that we in this Chamber had the power to decide how many police should be allocated to this work. Surely that is a matter for the chief police officer in charge of each area to decide. It is up to him to decide whether men can be spared for this work. All that this amendment, if passed, would achieve would be to give the police the legal power to carry out this provision. It would not dictate the number of policemen who should be allocated to this work and removed from their present duties. It would not even determine the season of the year when such testing would take place. All those issues would remain flexible. My noble friend Lord Nugent referred to the matter of how best to use the police manpower. However, that is not our decision. That is for the police to determine.
It has been said that the public accept an intensification of random breath testing at Christmas. I believe the public accept breath testing in general. Those who do not accept it are those who are bound to be over the limit, or the people who are irritated by being pulled up by the police. However, we must consider the greater good. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to excuses used to stop motorists. That is nonsense. It is wrong that such excuses should have to be used to stop motorists. I am very much in favour of the amendment, but I do not like the proposed new subsection (2B) which requires police officers to display signs to inform motorists of the purpose of the check. Surely that is tantamount to advising motorists to take a back route and not pass the sign. If the checks are to be random, they should be genuinely random. The police should not warn people of them. However, that is where my Australian background gives me a different attitude. Australians do not believe the police should give offenders a sporting chance.
Random breath tests have been effective in Australia. Without doubt they make motorists think twice about drinking to excess before they drive. They stop some motorists from doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made a most interesting point when he suggested that people should think about drinking only when they were within walking distance of their homes. In Sweden when people go out with a group of friends and they know they are likely to drink, one of the group will undertake not to drink so that he can drive the rest home. This is a moral rather than a political issue. I hope there will be a free vote on this matter. I am not sure that I agree with the wording of the amendment; but I certainly support the principle behind it. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I am the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which has various committees, one of which is considering random breath testing. The society has consistently disagreedߞand still doesߞwith random breath testing. It has advocated a system which is commonly known as unfettered discretion. That in essence means that the police may test motorists at any time if they suspect that they have consumed alcohol.
898
It is RoSPA's opinion that the results of the scheme which operates in Australia, for example, suggest that people quickly become aware of the places where the police have set up road blocks for the purpose of testing and find alternative routes between their drinking place and home, thus negating the randomness of testing. Unfettered discretion would enable the police to operate road blocks if they so chose and also to stop vehicles if they thought a person had been drinking alcohol. As I said in my Second Reading speech, I am against random breath tests.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to say a brief word, mainly because my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes suggested that there was some doubt as to whether there were adequate powers for the police in existing legislation. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has said that there are. No doubt he had in the back of his mind the comments which his right honourable friend the Attorney-General made in another place on 5th December 1989, which were repeated by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Waddington, now my noble friend the Leader of this House, on 21st March 1990.
There is no doubt that the police have sufficient powers. What has led to the confusion is that for various and different reasons individual police forces apply their powers in different ways. In my view it would be quite wrong to suggest in any alteration to the law that instructions should be given to police authorities as to what they may or may not do in this regard because conditions vary in different parts of the country. For exampleߞand I am sorry for my noble friends who live north of the Borderߞthe record of testing and conviction for drunkenness associated with motor vehicles is much higher in Scotland than it is south of the Border. There is no doubt that there is a greater concentration of police effort, with their existing powers.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford mentioned some figures. I would only underline what he said by quoting Miss Barbara Sabey's paper, given at a conference at Essex University in March of last year. Miss Sabey is a recognised authority on road safety and safety-related matters. She was at the Department of Transport and TRRL and is now a consultant in that field. She said that in the 10-year period from 1975 to 1986 road deaths from drink-related accidents have halved. The process has continued. It would be fair to pay some tribute to the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport, Mr. Peter Bottomley, who waged a continuous and consistent battle against drinking and driving, and has succeeded. By any measurement, the figures are getting better and better.
At the conference to which I referred, the police, through the voice of Mr. Peter Joslin, the chief constable of Warwickshire and the then chairman of ACPO's traffic committee, said that hitherto the police had been unwilling to seek greater powers because they felt that without adequate resources they might find themselves in some difficulty. They have changed their minds since then. I wonder whether that presumes an increase in resources, which will undoubtedly be required if the amendment were

899
carried into law. At the same time he said that there is doubt and there are inconsistencies. Others say that an improvement could be brought about by a change in the attitude of the courts, which have been too lenient. The Magistrates' Association has taken the matter up and introduced a code relating to punishments. The Govern rent themselves have recognised the problem in alterations to the Criminal Justice Bill. At the end of the day we are moving forward steadily.
By all accounts there remains a hard core of drivers who are convicted of drink-related offences. It is for the police to target those drivers, having identified them through the available statistics. They have the tools to do the targeting. The courts have the tools to punish I hem. When this Bill comes into force, there will be other penalties. I do not believe that there are any good grounds for changing the law in this regard.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As my noble friend referred to me, I must take up some of his remarks, because they were so full of inaccuracies. First, he said that the police have the necessary powers. If they have the powers, why are we debating the amendment now? It is because in this Chamber we are all agreed that they do not have the powers. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, explained that the police have to have a device, such as stopping a driver for some other reason. That has come out so clearly in the debate. How can my noble friend say that the police already have all the necessary powers? That is what the amendment is all about.
He went on to say that the courts had a code of practice. I am a magistrate and in my experience if one is over the limit the penalty is mandatory disqualification. There is no such thing as a code of practice. That is why I believe the matter is so hotly debated.
I shall not go into the matter further, but it is so important that we must be accurate and I could not allow those comments to be made in my name.
Lord Foley: I feel compelled to rise and say a few words on this matter and I strongly urge your Lordships not to accept the amendment. I feel entitled to do so for two reasons. First, I have driven a motor car and have held a driving licence continuously for more than 50 years. Secondly, for reasons which do not concern this House, I do not drink alcohol.
My experience of driving a motor car, not only in this country but in various parts of the world, over such a long period has led me to discover that when in control of a motor car the frailty of human nature causes accidents for one reason and one reason only: the exercise of bad judgment.
The exercise of bad judgment may manifest itself in many ways. It may be lack of attention, because of tiredness, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has suggested, paying too much attention to the charming companion sitting next to you, or picking up a telephone and talking to someone instead of watching the road. It could even be the more grievous crime of excessive use of alcohol before or while driving. Those are the main causes of accidents.
900
The law being as it is, the police are entitled to stop you if they believe that you are driving in a careless manner. They do not do so unless you do something abnormal such as driving too slowly, clipping a corner or something which suggests to them that you are not in a normal state. That is all very fine, and that is how it should be. That is the right way to proceed. However, I suggest that to stop people at random merely because they happen to be unlucky is a gross invasion of their personal rights.
The motorist is not the most popular member of the community. Motorists have had a hard time over the past 30 or 40 years. Road tax has gone up, petrol prices have risen, the price of motor cars has increased enormously; more and more restrictions have been imposed in relation to parking, and so on. Motorists feel that they are somewhat hard done by. They are not all as evil as the press and certain sections of the community suggest. To impose a new restriction such as that will have the reverse effect to that which is desirable. I therefore strongly urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Lord Lewin: My professional training has taught me to have a great respect for the power of deterrence and for that reason I support the amendment. With the greatest temerity, I question the logic of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who seemed to me to look at the problem from the point of view of the sportsman and not of the bird. If the bird knows that within a certain area people will shoot at random, or badly aimed or well aimed, he will avoid that area.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The noble Lord is quite wrong. The bird would stay on the ground and walk backwards.
Lord Lewin: It would have the same effect. In the present circumstances, if a man goes out to dinner, as I hope to do this evening, has the normal three or four glasses of wine and thinks he is near the limit, he will drive with greater care than usual on his way home in the hope that he will not commit some minor offence and be stopped. On the other hand, if he knew that there was a risk that he would be stopped at random, he would not drink and drive. Surely we are trying to persuade people not to drink and drive. That is why I shall go home by train this evening.
Lord Swinfen: We already have checks on our roads operated by the police for road fund licences on motor vehicles, with regard to commercial vehicles to see whether they are overweight, for traffic censuses and for unannounced radar speed checks. As far as I am aware, those are perfectly acceptable forms of enforcing the law. I can see no difference in having the authority to set up checkpoints to ensure that the public do not drive with excess alcohol. It will probably engender better relations between the police and the public generally if they know that the police are setting up checkpoints rather than their being stopped for some minor offence of which, at another time of day, the policeman would take absolutely no notice.
For those reasonsߞI could go on for hours, but I shall not do so; it is getting lateߞI strongly support

901
the amendment. However, there is one point that we should consider at a later stage; namely, the notice on the side of the road explaining the reason for the check. If there were a long queue of cars waiting for drivers to be checked, it would not be difficult for a driver to change places with one of the passengers. For that reason, I should not want a specific sign saying that it was a check for alcohol.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be pleased with this evening's debate on the subject. It has been well supported.
All noble Lords certainly agree that drinking and driving do not go together. That is indicative of society's hardening attitude towards drink-driving, which has changed very much over the years since the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was concerned with the matter 25 years ago. There is now a very much harder attitude. I therefore well understand the spirit in which the new clause has been tabled.
However, I have to say again that the existing police powers, which the Government reviewed last year following a period of public consultation, are extensive. I do not believe that they have led to any problems in practice or have limited police enforcement activity. I do not see how assertions of problems can be consistent with the fact that there are now three times more tests than there were a decade ago. As noble Lords said, positive tests have gone down, which says much for the deterrence value of the current approach. I must again remind noble Lords of what my noble friend the former Home Secretary said in another place on 21st March last year and which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham reiterated this evening.
It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require the driver of a vehicle to stop for the purpose of investigating whether he has alcohol in his body. It is important to note from this that, contrary to popular belief, the police officer does not need an excuse to stop a vehicle on the road. Having stopped the vehicle, it is then lawful for the officer to require a specimen of breath if he has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body. It is accordingly lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random for that purpose provided that there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct by the officer. These are not devices, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, described them.
We have to ask anyway whether formalised roadside checks in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State would provide an effective approach to policing the problem. I acknowledge the safeguards that this approach provides for the protection of the public, but might it not act as a constraint on the police? Why should the police want to administer breath tests where they have no reasonable suspicion that a person has been drinking?
I know that the checkpoint approach has brought about a reduction in drink-driving in some states in Australia to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of
902
Parkes referred. But our approachߞthat of changing attitudesߞhas brought about a greater reduction. The incidence of drink-driving in Australia was, and remains, higher than in the United Kingdom, although comparison is complicated by differences in the legal limit. After an initial large reduction in the number of drink-related fatalities in New South Wales, the level has remained fairly stable, while there has been a steady decline here in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in New South Wales the percentage of drivers and riders killed who were known to be above the legal limit stood in 1989 at 33 per cent. down from 40 per cent. in 1982 when random breath testing was introducedߞa 7 per cent. reduction. In Britain it was 19 per cent. down from 33 per cent. in 1982 ߞa reduction of 14 per cent. Moreover, the New South Wales environment is one where a driver stands a one in three chance of being breath-tested every year and where those powers are coupled with extensive publicity.
Testing at that level would mean a twentyfold increase in testing in Britain. The police could not be diverted from their other responsibilities on the scale which that would require. That point was clearly made by, among others, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and my noble friend Lord Nugent. This could be done only if there was a significant increase in police manpower. It would also mean considerable disruption to law-abiding motorists on our roads, which are much more heavily trafficked than those in New South Wales. That point was clearly made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
In other countries, such as New Zealand and France, where the powers have been taken but no additional enforcement resources have been put in, there has been little or no long-term effect on casualties. They have failed to make the improvements over the last decade that we have. So we should not assume that a similar approach to that adopted in some other countries would be practical or would bring the results that we are looking for. Our circumstances are different and we have different levels of public awareness of the problem.
I acknowledge that the roadside checkpoint approach is a high-profile, deterrent approach. I am all in favour of a high profile in that area. Indeed, it seems to me that it is the profile and the level of enforcement that are most likely to bring results, not the randomness of the tests.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and other noble Lords have criticised variations in levels of breath testing in different parts of the country. Clearly I am keen to see high levels of police activity in that area, but operational decisions of that kind are matters for individual chief officers of police. That is as it should be. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on that point, although not with the rest of her speech. The introduction of a random breath testing power would not change that. There could be no question of obliging the police to carry out checks. Chief officers would properly have to make decisions on operational priorities as they do at present.

903
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the responses to the consultation on breath testing powers. It is by no means clear that the responses to consultation were as overwhelmingly in favour of random breath testing as the noble Lord suggested. What emerged more clearly was that almost all respondents were in favour of more testing.
I conclude therefore that the case for random breath testing has not been made out. I do not see that it would extend police powers significantly in practice. It might indeed give rise to new operational constraints. Hence, I am not convinced that it would be a better approach to tackling the menace of drink driving than the approach we have been pursuing for some years—that is, a substantial campaign to change public attitudes reinforced by police enforcement activity which has been stepped up in response to society s proper concern about this anti-social behaviour. The success of that approach is demonstrated by the reduction in the number of drink-drive fatalities in the 10 years between 1979 and 1988. Fatalities have halved from an estimated 1,790 to 840.
The existing powers of the police provide a proper balance. between enforcement and the rights of the individual. They have been shown to be sufficient for the job of bringing down the incidence of drink driving. I and I am sure your Lordships want to see that continue, and I should like to see the police make full use of those powers. Accordingly, I hope noble Lords will reject the new clause.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, responds, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could answer the point raised by his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I understood him to say that there had been no difficulty in administering the law as it stood. As she rightly pointed out, there is considerable difficulty in the courts, In that excuses are raised on all sides as to why a particular prosecution may not be proper, not because of the presence of alcohol but because of the way the matter was brought before the court and the method of stopping and questioning the accused.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not think I can say more than I have just said in clarifying the current powers of the police, which I believe to be crystal clear. The Home Secretary mentioned them in another place only last year and I have repeated them this evening. I cannot say what difficulties may arise in individual cases. However, what I can say is that the potential for difficulties in this amendment, if it was agreed to, would be even greater than under the existing law, bearing in mind all the regulations which would have to be obeyed. I believe that to be a recipe for confusion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall try to be brief in responding to the debate, though not as brief as the Minister. However, I have rather better arguments than the Minister. I should like to thank the whole Chamber for the interest taken in the debate which has certainly been very worthwhile. I thank all noble
904
Lords on both sides of the Chamber who have supported the proposition I have advanced. I think it right also to pay tribute to all those organisations, whether for or against the amendment, who have helped to sustain the arguments of noble Lords, as they supported Members of Parliament in another place. I refer in particular to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is a director. He exercised his right to depart from the policy which that organisation strongly espouses, which is to support this new clause.
The arguments deployed against the new clause are various. I shall select the most important ones. They tend to assert that the powers are sufficient as far as the police are concerned and that there would have to be an unreasonable deployment of police forces to deal with the situation. Those were arguments I sought to anticipate at the beginning of the debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, very cogently pointed out, if the powers laid down in the statute book and deployed in practice are all that clear we would not be debating this issue today. The fact remains that the prospects of being stopped, notwithstanding the assertions by the Minister, are about 250 to 1 against. The statistics advanced, which the Minister did not seek to refute, clearly indicate that people have become less concerned about being breath tested.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent (a former Minister of Transport), indicated that the "Christmas" argument was that more people were stopped—and they did not care whether it was on the basis of a pretext or pretence on the part of the police—and breathalysed at that time. I rather thought that was an argument in favour of the proposition for which we are contending rather than one against it.
One cogent argument the Minister did not deal with is that the percentage of deaths caused by drivers over the legal limit is higher now than in the 1960s. We do not appear to have made much improvement on that score. For two days running I have been fascinated by the reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Yesterday we were taken back to the Parliament Act 1911. Today we have had some very revealing accounts of discussions that took place in the Labour Government (which he served so magnificently and in respect of which he chaired more committees than I knew existed). There can be no doubt that the noble Lord speaks with great experience in these matters. I am bound to say that if joining the Band of Hope has done him so much good I am tempted to do so myself. We heard that that Government took the view that there were great barriers to legislation. I believe it is a great pity that that decision was taken, but it is a matter of history.
There has been much argument about what happens in Australia, in particular in New South Wales. There is one thing about the relationship between the police and public that is significant and worth recounting to the Chamber. This measure has always been a popular measure in New South Wales. Based on surveys carried out, there was increased popularity for the measure when random breath

905
testing came into operation. In 1982 a survey indicated that 64 per cent. of respondents gave their support. That support rose to 85 per cent. in 1983, and in 1987 —five years after the introduction of the measure—it had increased to 97 per cent. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that police public relations have been impaired. The contrary would appear to be the case and that is because people see what is happening. There is a clear indication that other people are being tested and there is nothing unfair in the arrangements being made.
I say in parenthesis that I take the point made by the noble Baroness and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that the detail of the new clause could be re-examined if adopted, but I do not propose to go into it now because I do not want to take up the time of the Committee.
I believe that the argument that police public relations would be more seriously impaired is seriously flawed. People become very upset if they think that they are being asked to take a breath test, in circumstances which the law may or may not permit, when they appear to have been singled out. In fact it has happened to me. A police officer said that I had been speeding. At the time I was accompanied by my wife. There was no possibility that I had been speeding. I could see from 400 yards away the police car that had stopped another vehicle. The police officer admitted that I had been obliged to stop in order to enter the road, so that I should have had to reach the speed that he had indicated of 43 miles an hour—which was the source of his justification—in order to justify him having stopped me. People do get fed up with that sort of conduct. It brings humbug and hypocrisy into the situation and it is that which impairs the relationship between the driving public and the police.
There is this other argument. The average number of breath tests carried out per traffic officer in the United Kingdom for 1989 was—remarkably—only one per week. In New South Wales even the most enthusiastic policy of random breath testing stops each driver—each driver—every two years. I do not consider that excessive.
I end by saying that one of the protections against many of the arguments that have been adduced against this proposal tonight—it has not been commented on at all—is in subsection (2D) of the new clause:
"The Secretary of State shall consult with chief officers of police and other organisations on a code of practice for the detailed operation of roadside checks".
That is a protection which needs to be carried out. It would be done in accordance with regulations which would be set out following the adoption of this new clause.
Every argument has been deployed by the Committee. I fear that I cannot accept the recommendation of the Minister. I too am pleased to see him back in his place but I am not wholly delighted with the arguments that he adduced. I feel that on this very important matter we must test the opinion of the Committee.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Blackstone, B.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rea, L.

Craigavon, V.

Richard, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington,L.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Foot, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lewin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hesketh, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Orkney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colwyn, L.

Peel, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Cross, V.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rodney, L.

Downshire, M.

Saint Oswald, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elles, B.

Selsdon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shannon, E.

Erroll, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Feversham, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Foley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Teviot, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thurlow, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wise, L.

Harvington, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Prescribed limits on concentration of alcohol
."In section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the words 35 microgrammes" there shall be substituted the words "22 microgrammes", for the words "80 milligrammes" there sh ill he substituted the words "50 milligrammes" and for the words "107 milligrammes" there shall be substituted the words "67 microgrammes.").
The noble Lord said: The measure complements, and would be therefore at its most effective, if we had random breath testing. That proposal has been rejected: by the Committee today. Nonetheless the amendment remains useful in its own right. The objective is to change the legislation on the alcohol limit from 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. The change is supported by evidence from accident studies and experimental behaviour studies with which I shall not weary the Committee unless I am challenged. I have the details with me.
It emerges that, relative to zero, the accident risk starts to shoot up sharply for most people at about 60 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. There:.s ample evidence now to suggest that the present limit of 80 milligrammes is no longer supportable on technical grounds. The experimental studies seem to confirm that low levels of alcohol are able to impair driving skills very significantly. The legal limit has been set at 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres in Australia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Yugoslavia and some states of the United States. Many countries have discovered that, if introduced with other measures—such as high profile random breath testing —a reduction in the limit is likely to contribute to accident reduction.
There is overwhelming evidence from studies that have been carried out for the European Commission that such a reduction in the limit would be worth achieving. I believe that, when people start out on the road having had some drink, they are uncertain about whether they have gone over the limit. That factor remains notwithstanding all the advice given that people should not drink and drive. I believe very strongly that the amendment is a move that should be undertaken.
Like the other amendment, it requires general improvements in enforcement. I am by no means convinced that we are far enough along that road. The Minister believes that we have gone virtually as far as is reasonable; I do not accept that. If we were to go along t this route we should be adopting a sensible regime which is supported now by powerful studies. If challenged, I shall refer to the details when winding up. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I rise to support the amendment. I wish to reiterate what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Last year the British Medical Association's annual representative meeting passed a resolution supporting the terms of the amendment: that is, a reduction in the legal limit for blood alcohol from 80 milligrammes to 50
908
milligrammes per 100 millilitres. I shall not detain the Committee long. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, it is well over 20 years since the present British legal limit was chosen. However, since that time, Australia, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and some states of the United States of America and Yugoslavia have introduced a legal limit of 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres.
Much research carried out was reported in a seminal paper by Dr. James Dunbar from the University Department of Forensic Medicine in Dundee four years ago. It indicated—I need not go into the details—that there were over 200 scientific papers then in print on measuring reaction time, tracking, concentrated attention, information processing, psychomotor performance and driver performance. The research demonstrated serious decline in those skills at levels of about 30 to 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. Data from Canada clearly showed that young men under 20 years of age, and drivers over 55 in particular, had an increased risk of having an accident at low alcohol concentrations. Driving experiments on closed courses showed impaired responses to braking and steering in accident avoidance manoeuvres at concentrations of around 30 milligrammes per 100 millilitres.
It is long overdue that we in this country should follow international trends by bringing down the legal limit to the figure mentioned in the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The present legal alcohol limit for drivers—80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, or equivalent in breath or urine—is scientifically based as being the level at which, in contrast with what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, for most people the chance of being involved in an accident starts to rise sharply. Although he stated that he had the figures with him he did not use them to back up his case; I do not complain about that but it is the case that at present almost half of those convicted of drinking and driving are convicted at or around twice the existing legal limit.
I believe that we shall get the greatest benefit by continuing to target present efforts at those who drink above the current limit. Diffusing those efforts to cover a wider range of drivers would increase the risk that the most serious cases might not be identified. There is little evidence of a significant accident problem among people with blood alcohol levels below 80 milligrammes. So a reduction in the limit might increase convictions without materially reducing casualties.
We remain of the view that it would be premature and counter-productive to alter the present alcohol limit. To do so would detract from the main message, which is not to mix drinking and driving at all. That is the underlying message in our successful campaign against drinking and driving. Without any change in the law we have succeeded in changing attitudes so that drinking and driving is now seen as anti-social behaviour. Over the 10 years 1979–1988, the annual number of drink-drive fatalities has halved; reducing from 1,790 to 840.

909
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke about young people. We are particularly concerned to reduce the high casualty rate among young drivers. For that reason we target that group in our anti-drink campaigns. Introducing a lower limit for young or inexperienced drivers would, however, complicate the task of enforcement. It would also imply that older and more experienced drivers can, so to speak, hold their drink and so undermine the main thrust of the message, "Don't drink and drive".
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, the amendment was drafted chiefly in order to mesh in with the previous amendment relating to random breath testing. However, he also said that it would be freestanding. I hope that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: I should be grateful if the Minister would give the Committee an idea of the amount of drink that one can consume with 80 milligrammes of alcohol and the amount that one would be allowed to consume if the limit were only 50 milligrammes. Years ago the amount was expressed in terms of half pints of beer, single measures of whisky, glasses of table wine and so forth. It would be of great assistance to be told at this stage of the debate.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I have heard of various measures, having once been an enthusiast, but it is 12 years since I took a drink. The Government prefer not to give such advice because the amount varies from individual to individual and could be misleading.
Lord Rea: Can the Minister explain his logic because it has escaped me? He said that lowering the legal limit to 50 milligrammes would dilute the general message that it was wrong to drink and drive. Can the Minister explain that statement because I believe that the change would accent the position?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I suppose that it depends upon how one looks at the situation. I believe it to be self-evident that if one is changing the emphasis one is changing the message which has been so successful; that is, do not drink and drive. Because it has been so successful, we wish to stick with it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The logic of my noble friend's comment escaped me but I found the Minister's answer singularly unimpressive. I see no logic in it whatever. The Minister and several of his noble friends have said that we are making slow but good progress. Approximately 1,200 people are killed each year as a result of drink driving. The Minister shakes his head and I shall be corrected. Approximately 5,000 people are killed on the roads every year, but we are dealing here only with cases of drink driving. The progress is not fast enough. This amendment— and the amendment unfortunately rejected by the Committee—will make a valuable contribution towards speeding up the process of saving lives.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I said that we should have more convictions but fewer results. I believe that the noble Lord's figures are wrong, but I did not shake my head. From 1979 to 1988 the annual number of drink-drive fatalities halved from 1,790 to 840. That must be regarded as satisfactory progress.
Lord Clinton-Davis: According to the Minister's logic progress would be even more remarkable if he were to agree to adopt my proposal. He merely asserts that certain things are happening and therefore we should stick with 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. There is no evidence whatever —indeed, such evidence as there is would appear to point the other way. In 1985 a review of experimental studies was carried out by the New South Wales Traffic Authority. It came to the clear conclusion that any relaxation in its 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres limit could only lead to an increase in traffic crashes, injuries and deaths. Analysis after analysis rejects the conclusion that the Minister has made. We should be in extremely respectable company if we were to agree to the change.
I should be stretching the bounds of credulity if I were to say that I shall consider the Minister's reply with great care. However, I shall reserve the right to return to the matter in due course, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee meets again not before five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Bill
7.7 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is very straightforward; it is to improve the welfare of animals at slaughter. That is a matter of professional and personal concern to me and one which is worthy of your Lordships' whole-hearted support. It is the fruit of an initiative which the honourable Member for Holland with Boston began in another place. I must pay tribute to him, to Compassion in World Farming, to the RSPCA and to the British Veterinary Association for all their help in this matter. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank the Government for the considerable resources that they have made available to help progress this Bill.
The Bill is entirely uncontroversial. The new provisions stem from the Government's commitment to implement some 59 of the recommendations from the Farm Animal Welfare Council's 1984 report on the welfare of livestock (red meat animals) at the time of slaughter.
The Bill amends the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 which covers England and Wales. Essentially the

911
provisions in this Bill are concerned with the way existing law on welfare at slaughter is enforced and complied with.
Clause 1 refers to recommendation 46 in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report. It adds to existing regulationߞmaking powers for securing humane conditions of slaughter to enable the Minister to require occupiers of slaughter premises to secure compliance with any provisions of such regulations.
Classes 2 and 3 add to and strengthen the Minister's powers on the licensing and training of slaughtermen by extending the category of person eligible to supervise a trainee slaughterman. They make clear the types of qualifications which may be required before a slaughterman's licence of any class is issued and allow the prescribing of the form of the licence and the information that it must contain. In the context of these clauses your Lordships will note that they encompass recommendations 43, 44, 45 and 47 of the council's report.
Clause 4 requires local authorities responsible for executing and enforcing legislation on the welfare of animals at slaughter to arrange for the supervision of slaughter premises in their district by officers holding qualifications prescribed in regulations and to comply with directions given to them by Ministers concerning the arrangements for supervision. That clause refers to recommendations 1 and 2 of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report.
Clause 5 deals with a substantial number of the council's recommendations by making provisions for Ministers to prepare, issue and revise codes of practice giving guidance on the practical application of the law on the welfare of animals at slaughter. A breach of any such code would not render a person liable to prosecution but would be capable of being used as evidence tending to show contravention of the law.
All the new provisions introduced by the Bill require further action through regulations, codes of practice or ministerial directions before they come into full effect. I hope that the secondary measures can be expedited.
These measures are intended to ensure adequate compliance with legislation with particular regard to conditions which are stressful to animals at slaughter and affect their slaughter, such as the unloading of animals, the lairaging when animals of different social groupings are mixed, handling, marking, weighing and taming and during the pre-slaughter treatment in the approach races and in stunning areas.
A good welfare practice at slaughter results in more wholesome and profitable carcasses. Hence, the proposed regulations are in the interests of the industry.
Noble Lords may ask why the Bill has not covered all recommendations in the council's report. The simple reason is that its proposals are deliberately uncontroversial to the extent that it received wholehearted support in another place. I should caution your Lordships against the temptation to introduce amendments of a more controversial nature. This is a Private Member's Bill and for it to succeed it must be pleasing to all sides of the House. I understand that the Government are to address the
912
council's more contentious recommendations in a government Bill which they intend to bring forward as soon as parliamentary time permits.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is an admirable Bill. The sooner it reaches the statute book the better.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, with his unrivalled knowledge and great experience, has taken on the task of seeing this small but useful Bill through your Lordships' House. I hope that he does not suffer the same fate as I when I introduced a very complicated Bill to reform the whole of the legislation about the welfare of deer. I took that through your Lordships' House and had to put it through in three Sessions before it finally became law. That Bill was much more complicated than this and we had to battle hard. I hope that we shall resist the temptation, strong though it is, to table amendments to the Bill so that it can go through broadly as it stands.
As the noble Lord said, the Bill has full government support and, I suspect, the support of every noble Lord who is to speak in the debate this evening. Nevertheless, I should like to offer a few words of strong criticism of the Government in this matter. The Farm Animal Welfare Council issued three excellent reports on the welfare of animals for slaughter in 1982, 1984 and 1985. The second report in 1984 dealing with livestock provides the basis, as the noble Lord said, for the animal welfare improvements proposed in the Bill. That report was published in 1984, seven years ago. Is that not a totally inexcusable delay in improving animal welfare?
I drew the Minister's attention to the Notice of Motion No. 853 on the Order Paper of another place on 17th July 1984 and the amendment to it. Let us look at that Motion. It was an all-party Motion in another place headed by leading Conservative Members. It commends the Farm Animal Welfare Council report and looks forward to:
"its early implementation by the government".
That was in 1984.
More interesting is an amendment added by another Conservative Member, Miss Janet Fookes, and other Members from all parties. That amendment stated:
"is appalled by the conditions in many slaughter houses revealed by the Report; and demands that the Government implement the recommendations as a matter of urgency and without shilly-shallying".
That was the Motion and the amendment to it in the other place some seven years ago. We have been waiting ever since for something to be done.
Now, with great respect, what we have is not very much. As the noble Lord said, it is a handful of non-controversial proposals mostly dependent on subordinate legislation and codes of practice, which, it is a fair guess the Government have yet to draft. How much longer must we wait?

913
The 1984 report contained 51 recommendations for legislation, 11 recommendations for better enforcement, 25 recommendations for codes of practice and 9 recommendations for more research. This Bill scarcely makes a dent in the catalogue of essential improvements needed in the welfare of animals at slaughter.
My criticism is blunt. I ask the noble Baroness—and I have given her notice of this—why we have had to wait for seven years for a minimal start. Secondly, when can we expect to see more government legislation on the main and more controversial recommendations? The noble Lord will forgive me if I smile when he says that he is happy because the Government will bring forward these more controversial changes when parliamentary time permits. I have been in one or other Chamber for 40 years. I have heard that refrain so often that I no longer take any notice of it. That legislation will not be introduced unless we continue to fight very hard for it and offer blunt criticisms when it does not appear. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not be satisfied but will join with the rest of us in saying that this is not good enough and is only a very minimal start.
Which of the main recommendations in the report do the Government not accept? Let us know where we stand. How hard does the battle need to be to get the remainder of the recommendations into law? How many of the 117 recommendations do the Government wish to see implemented and which are to be shelved? We should know that after seven years. The Government have had long enough to make up their mind.
Animals continue to be subject to unnecessary suffering in slaughterhouses. There is no doubt about that. I am sure that with his great experience, the noble Lord will agree with that. It is not a good record either as regards general legislation or the Government's implementation of the recommendations for reform.
To echo the words of the amendment to that Motion in the other place, the Government have been shillyߞshallying now for seven years. We bluntly have to say so. We have to ask equally bluntly how soon something really deliberate is going to be done to put into force the main recommendations of the 1984 report.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for having presented this Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness for very kindly having sent me a brief about it. It is most helpful. I welcome the Bill but I cannot help feeling some sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said. When I read the Bill and the brief I wondered why they had not gone further. In particular I wondered whether, as stated in Clause 2(2), "a person" with the appropriate qualifications will be sufficient to exercise the necessary supervision. Is "a person" going to ensure that the intentions of the Farm Animal Welfare Council are put into practice?
I preface my brief remarks by saying that it must be inevitable that anyone who works in a slaughterhouse
914
becomes hardened to the distasteful things they see happening every day of their working life. I have been told that many people, if they saw what happened in a slaughterhouse, would never eat meat again. But it is a job. In the same way, a surgeon obviously has to be hardened to the distasteful sights that he sees, such as the blood and the intestines when he has to slit open a person's stomach. I am so squeamish that I could not be a surgeon any more than I could be a slaughterman. But it is a job that has to be done. At the same time the risk is that this immunity from natural squeamishness may lead to an insensitivity towards cruelty.
At the moment I believe that each abattoir has a governmentߞappointed veterinary inspector. But he cannot be everywhere at once. I have been told that there is a risk that, when there is a rush of animals and the abattoir is busy, with people in a hurry, short cuts may be taken. One example is that it is necessary for the ear tags to be removed from cattle before they go for slaughter. The staff have the equipment to remove them painlessly but from time to time they are just ripped off causing the animals unnecessary pain and additional stress. Another example during a rush is holding animals close to the point of slaughter.
That leads to the question of the design of abattoirs. It is essential that animals awaiting slaughter should be held in an area which is well separated from the point of slaughter. The animals can smell the blood and sense what is going on. That causes additional stress and on occasions causes the animals to panic. That is the only reason why an otherwise docile beast can go berserk. If an animal escapes, as happens from time to time, it goes charging out and has to be rounded up. It may have caused damage in the meantime. That is an indication of the terror that can be inflicted on animals when they are too close to the point of slaughter.
Also pertinent to the design of slaughterhouses is the holding box in which the animal is held while it is being stunned. Animals are of course of different sizes. Therefore the design of the box should be such that the stunning equipment should be 100 per cent. effective the first time. Similarly, the inspector, the properly trained person to do the job as suggested in the Bill, should be responsible for checking the stunning equipment on a regular basis and also for checking that the operator is fully competent to use it.
In the case of the captive bolt I am told that examination of carcasses reveals that on occasions four or five attempts have had to be made before the animal is properly stunned with the captive bolt equipment. Similarly, where electric tongs are used, if the voltage is not up to the fully appropriate level the animal can receive a severe shock without being rendered unconscious. There should be a trip switch to ensure that a shock is not administered unless there is a full voltage of electricity available to ensure that the animal is rendered unconscious the first time without having to endure suffering because of several attempts being made.
I wish the Bill well. Like the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's

915
Government will pursue the matter and fulfil the other requirements of the Farm Animal Welfare Council with the, minimum of delay. I welcome the Bill.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I do not possess the detailed knowledge of the slaughter industry held by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I am a farmer and stock-keeper, now partially retired. I greatly welcome the Bill introduced in such a simple and understandable manner by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. The great delay that has occurred since the Farm Animal Welfare Council reported on what should be done is to be deplored. Now we are at least taking a step on the road to adopt in due course the majority, if not all, of the recommendations. I shall not dwell on the fact that it may be very difficult for the Government to decide what to do about some of them. In some cases there may be no answer.
We have to ensure that the Ministry gets parliamentary time and that each year we take a few more steps along the road so that when we are fully in the EC our standards are better than theirs. Then we shall feel independent. The Ministry won a great victory some years ago in preventing the export of live horses by the simple imposition of a price structure. It is to be hoped that in future methods can be found of equal efficacy which do not haul us into the European Court.
There is a problem looming, if it is not here already, which is well known to the Ministry and my noble friend. Enormous difficulties have been caused in the knackering and rendering trade by the discovery of BSE. Previously in the traditional knackering industry one rang up, the van came, the animal was taken away and, if you were lucky, you got a small cheque. If you were unlucky you got nothing, but you never got a bill. Now the reverse is the case. The knackers may not be there. Inevitably that will lead to the illicit and I believe illegal practice of slaughter on the farm by unlicensed slaughtermen.
There are all kinds of nasty ways to do it. One of the ways to discourage, or at least to mitigate, the effect of this is for the captive bolt pistol which although it has shortcomings is quite easy to use, to cease to be categorised as a firearm. To obtain such a device one has to produce four photographs and pay a large fee. It is surely better to consider widening the availability of these implements in cases where the knackering trade has collapsed. Indeed my noble friend told me earlier that his establishment, which must be of the very highest repute, is allowed only three. They have to be treated as if they were made of solid gold in order to comply with police regulations. I exaggerate, I fear, about the solid gold, but that is the feeling. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will consider that as a looming problem in agriculture. I know it is not within the scope of this Bill but I am quite sure that the problems with the rendering trade will affect a wider and wider field; and it is but another part of the slaughtering trade.
I should also like to see transport dealt with but I must not dwell on that. Transport has great problems. I am glad to see the Bill. I hope that the noble
916
Baroness will be able, in Cabinet or elsewhere, to defend the living animals as robustly as she defended that mythical animal, the haggis, yesterday. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, and all seven of us present for the debate, welcome. I am sure that it is a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, making his maiden introduction of a Bill in your Lordships' House and also to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, whom we heard for the first time two days ago. It is nice to hear him again.
I do not know why it is that on this subject of animal welfare we debate under a guillotine. This is the only guillotine imposed on your Lordships' House; that of the supper interval. We have a Motion that the House resume at five minutes past eight. I am almost in the mood to make sure that it does not resume until five minutes past 10. However, I have had my share of the time of the House this week and I must not make a nuisance of myself; not this week. Quite honestly, it is too bad that it is animal welfare and animal matters that come under this restraint. It is not right.
The introduction of any Bill at Second Reading usually gives the opportunity for a wider survey on some of the issues relating to the subject of the Bill. But when we are under this kind of timetable we have to stick to the Bill. We do not have the opportunity to make a few philosophical remarks about how human beings are treating the animal kingdom under modern conditions of commercial and population pressure. I am always protesting against that but it makes no difference. The usual channels are deaf or blocked to appeals to give the House the opportunity to debate some matters free of this limitation on time.
There are many occasions when on this kind of attendance your Lordships' House, in Committee, legislates. If it can do that, surely it can spare some time, even though the attendance may not be up to the usual standard, to discuss animals. The reason for the sparse attendance at the moment is that our colleagues and other noble Lords and their guests are busy having refreshment. That is an added obstacle to the work of the House on this subject.
Before I go on to be very rude indeed, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, a former president of the British Veterinary Association whose prestige in the veterinary profession and his long service to animal welfare are well known, that it is a great honour to have him introduce this Bill. He is the first veterinary surgeon in your Lordships' House; and now that we have one, we have a notable one. I pay him my great respects. I am sure that we envy the noble Lord the pleasure of introducing a Bill that we shall welcome and of which we shall say "It is long overdue and does not go far enough".
If we are to have a debate in the supper break, it is also a good thing that we have a topic—the welfare of animals at slaughter—which is very appropriate for a supper interval. My only regret is that when noble Lords go to their refreshment along the corridor we do not broadcast live the proceedings in your Lordships'

917
House. I am willing to offer £1,000 towards the cost of installing in the dining rooms of the House live television, or at least live sound, of the debates during the supper intervals so that they may pause when eating their meat to consider how it got there and interrupt conversation on less important matters to listen to what this slaughter business is. Perhaps they would then insist on the supper interval being free of intervention from people who welcome unpleasant subjects to give them indigestion. For this Bill we should have to provide sick bags in the dining rooms if we were to broadcast this subject live. They would all get up and not come back. It would be a wonderful opportunity of ramming home the importance of this subject to this House. However, I must not take more time than is proper at the moment. I resent the conditions under which we discuss the subject. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for whom I have great affection, for any incursion on her time.
I shall do no more now than say that in the background to this Bill is still the ritually slaughtered animal. I shall not dilate on the subject but I am bound to draw attention to the fact that it is a growing industry. As the Moslem population increases, then the need for the ritual slaughter of animals will increase too. It will be intolerable if this country is divided into two sections of slaughter policy; one the secular section where we regard it as essential to have pre-stunning before killing an animal, and one where there is no such condition. I do not think that a nation divided in that way between one religious community and others will be at peace. The many aspects of the matter which arise on selling and labelling and putting ritually killed meat into the normal run of the wholesale and retail trade are deeply worrying. One day many people will rise up and say, "It has to change". That is all I am going to say on that subject. That day will come and I hope to be there. We shall have to have a full debate at a suitable moment on where we are going on this subject of ritually killed animals. We want animals to be killed and treated in other respects as we have laid down in the law and not have immunities, which were granted under entirely different circumstances, widely extended because of a complete change in the composition of our community.
I have nothing but approval for the Bill. Of course it has taken too long to arrive; indeed, they all take too long. We do not interfere with the conditions of animals in those circumstances unless they become a scandal. But at that stage it is very late in the day. Moreover, very frequently, enormous sums of capital have been invested in slaughter house equipment which people plead would be uneconomic to replace, except in the long term.
The next piece of legislation which will come before this House will concern the tethering of pigs. It will raise similar issues. Those concerned want eight years to carry out the reforms which we intend to make. There are already signs that, as the Bill is a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons, it may get
918
blocked for lack of time and it is possible that other problems lie ahead. It will be a great shame and scandal if that proves to be the case.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in his stress upon oversight. One person may not be enough for the purpose. Indeed, one named person was certainly not enough in the laboratory where Professor Feldberg was at work on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I know that those who are doing the job do not like someone looking over their shoulder to check that they are doing the right thing. However, we are dealing with the lives of other sensitive creatures and we must respect that fact. We cannot proceed as if they do not matter because they jolly well do. Enforcement is the key to this as it is the key to everything in animal welfare. I hope that a watch will be kept on the effectiveness of the supervision which is carried out.
Where do we stand in regard to the EC on the matter? I have already passed a note to the noble Baroness on the question. I understand that there is a proposal passing through the EC which will deal with the matter on a European basis, although it may be wider in its full effect. The process of policy making in the EC involves more circumlocution than here. It has to go through all the nations, and so on. The officials and the commissioners do not have the same relationship as Ministers and civil servants have in this country.
From what I hear Sir Leon Brittan, who is one of the British commissioners, has put a spoke in to stop something happening. Moreover, I heard today that another commissioner has added his spoke to the wheel. Why are these spokes being put into the progress of this work? Why does one of them come from a British commissioner? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, that we must try to be in advance of Europe and not slither around waiting for them to set our pace. This has a European dimension and it is a very important one. We must be provided with more information about what is happening in Europe than we receive at present. I say that because Europe is probably settling things for us. We need to know what is happening.
I do not think I have impeded the progress of the House sufficiently to interfere with what the Committee wants to do when its Members return well fed to the Chamber at five minutes past eight.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on these occasions. He is a great animal lover and does much to help the welfare of animals generally and in the industry. It is an equal pleasure to have had the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, to introduce the Bill, as he is a former president of the British Veterinary Association.
Over the past five years a great deal of legislation has been enacted which has been beneficial to the welfare of animals. While recognising the fact that long delays have taken place, much animal welfare legislation has been introduced. The Government may rightly feel proud of their record to date. I believe that

919
the noble Baroness has done a great deal both through this House and elsewhere. Reading my Horse and Hound magazine, I never cease to see her pictured smilingly attending either sales or some seminar. I am now very familiar with what she looks like in print.
However, whether the legislation coupled with the regulations is enforceable many people who look after animals doubt. It would appear that we have before us sound legislation embodying a code of practice which is both easy to follow and, I suggest, enforceable.
I have to admit to being a layman as regards certain techniques of slaughter used on different types of animals. But, having witnessed the slaughter of pigs both in this country and West Germany, I know that our techniques are generally much better than those of our European partners. I believe that the technique of slaughtering animals is not a simple one. It needs to be studied and improved upon. Indeed, I would go further and say that I believe different animal types require different techniques.
In that connection, I question whether there should be emergency provisions within the Bill for the slaughter of animals which have been involved in traffic accidents or similar incidents. I recall the IRA bomb attack in Hyde Park on 20th July 1982 when 16 horses, 3f the Household Cavalry were killed or fatally injured and had to be quickly destroyed. I wonder whether we should put a provision into the Bill to ensure that there is some kind of emergency regulation.
Clause 3 of the Bill amends Section 16 of the 1980 Act in regard to the training, examining and testing of slaughtermen. Much has already been said about the single person, but I believe there is an important need for uniform training and testing, possibly before licences are issued or renewed. Furthermore, licences should reflect the type of animals to be slaughtered within particular slaughterhouses. That should be covered within the small print of the licence.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has already mentioned the issue of ritual slaughter. However, I believe that could be omitted from the Bill. A provision for the slaughter of animals on accepted spiritual or religious grounds needs to be included. Having had the honour on several occasions of attending the Gurkha religious ceremony of Dashera, I admit to being concerned that that type of ceremony could be. debarred under this legislation. It is possible that the noble Baroness may wish to say something about that in her reply.
The Bill will go a long way to improving the welfare of animals by removing their pain and suffering. It will ensure that slaughtering techniques and procedures are correctly carried out. As one who cares about animals, I too support the Bill.
7.48 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill and all that it implies. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, on the very clear way in which he introduced the legislation. The background
920
against which the Bill is set has been clearly outlined by noble Lords who are much more familiar than I with the details of the slaughter of animals.
It seems to me—although this point has not been mentioned by other speakers—that one of the concerns which strike a layman is that, like many other businesses, slaughtering cannot be a very profitable business whether it is done by private or local authority slaughterhouses. Indeed, margins must be fairly narrow. I should have thought that, as is the case with most businesses these days, there will always be attempts to get a better throughput in order to achieve the necessary profitability to keep the business going. That causes some concern. For example, if the business going through the slaughterhouse is being speeded up, there will be more than a temptation to cut corners and not do the job properly.
Against that background, the Bill provides for the designation of officials to be responsible for animal welfare and the nominating of slaughterhouse staff to look after the welfare of animals. Most importantly, it provides for the proper training of slaughtermen. I do not believe that any noble Lord has mentioned this point, though I may be wrong, but, if we accept the scenario I have described as regards the need for profitability, it is likely that there will be bigger slaughterhouses which are further apart. That will mean that animals will have to be transported further and therefore that the stress they will suffer before they reach the slaughterhouses will be increased. That again emphasises the need for proper handling when they finally arrive.
Like many types of learning which are characteristic of this country and which will have to change, learning on the job in slaughterhouses is unacceptable. It may be acceptable for golf caddies and even, if I may say so in the Minister's presence, for trainee stable staff to learn as they go along —although in that area people probably need expert training—but there is a tendency for people to tag on to a man who knows what he is doing, watch him and learn. Bad practice can often be perpetuated in that way. People need proper training in theory and practice.
The Bill reinforces the excellent orders which have been introduced by the Government and which we welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke about television in our Dining Room. It was an interesting point. I do not know whether it will be accepted. Two sessions of hearing about animals being slaughtered may have a detrimental effect on the economy of the Dining Room of your Lordships' House, but I take his point. I shall be serious about his point on ritual slaughtering. That subject needs a debate in your Lordships' House. What he said has serious implications which should be addressed. I go along with him entirely on that.
I agree too with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby. Different animals require different methods of slaughter. That reinforces the need for proper training.
Other countries in Europe have similar problems in respect of slaughtering. I guess that some countries are much worse than we are. I hope that when there is uniformity in Europe we shall lead the field in

921
slaughterhouse practices. Some countries now joining the EC have practices which we find unacceptable. That applies also to some countries nearer home. There was a recent newspaper article which described the killing of pigs in south-west France. The French authorities allow a departure from normal standards where pigs have been traditionally killed by the family. Leniency is shown. Although the work is done efficiently, it struck me that the animal and its welfare might not be the prime consideration.
We welcome the Bill. It probably does not go far enough, but it will be a useful addition to the legislation on the subject.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, like others, we regard this as a useful Bill, and consequently we fully support it. I have already written to the Minister and told her that it is not our intention to table amendments to the Bill at any stage, because we agree with its promoters that we want a speedy passage for it into law, and amendments would not contribute towards achieving that objective.
Because of our support for the Bill, and our desire to see it on the statute book, we have no intention of raising tonight or at any time during its passage wider issues as to the future of slaughterhouses in general, and the thorny question of when Her Majesty's Government might find time to implement all the FAWC recommendations in this area, which, as we know, require primary legislation. That said, I endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Northfield as to the delay in that respect.
Other speakers have covered most aspects of this short but important amending Bill. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for his lucid presentation of the Bill, and to the Minister for sending me details of the Bill's provisions ahead of this Second Reading.
I understand that none of the Bill's substantial provisions can be brought fully into effect without the making of regulations, ministerial directions or codes of practice. I also understand that there will be full consultations with all interests on proposals for any such measures. Thus, the desire for speedy implementation of the Bill's provisions must be reconciled with the commitment to consult.
In the meat trade generally the consultation process can be protracted, but a recent and welcome development in training for the industry should expedite at least part of the discussion process. I refer to the establishment of the Meat Training Council under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Vestey. That council includes major elements in the industry and is supported by the Meat and Livestock Commission. The certification body in the council is the Institute of Meat. Here I must declare a non-pecuniary interest as a past president of that excellent training body. The Institute of Meat standards of achievement scheme would be an ideal medium to establish a national standard for licensing slaughtermen, and it covers all species. I shall not develop that point in greater detail as I promised
922
myself a brief speech, and the Institute of Meat has sent to the meat hygiene division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food details of what it is doing, and what it can do, in that important area.
The public has an ongoing interest in the welfare of animals at all times, and not least at slaughter. Various organisations have written commending the Bill. They, like myself, hope that it will soon be law, but even more, they hope that its provisions will be speedily implemented throughout England, Wales and Scotland. I also hope that corresponding legislation will be introduced in Northern Ireland, a point about which the Minister was kind enough to write to me. I fully support the Bill.
7.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby for sponsoring the Bill. It covers a subject which is of as great a concern to the Government, as I know it is to your Lordships' House. I want to make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that if I have not finished answering the questions by 8.5 p.m.—tough luck to the transport boys!
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said how difficult it is to get a Private Member's Bill through both Houses. He referred to the delays in implementing the FAWC's recommendations on the welfare of red meat animals, as did several other noble Lords. The Government agreed in principle to implement 104 of the council's recommendations —a substantial programme of work. Seven recommendations were immediately included in the ministry's research programme on stunning and slaughter; and 30 recommendations were implemented last year in new regulations and guidance issued to local authorities. The Bill will let us implement at least 59 recommendations, most in codes of practice. We intend to bring forward a government Bill to implement other recommendations from this and other council reports. My department is currently preparing a list on the stage reached in implementing each of the recommendations made by FAWC in its reports on welfare at slaughter. This will shortly be placed in the Library of the House. I also remind the noble Lord that in 1984 we updated the law on the welfare of poultry at slaughter through the Animal Health Welfare Act in order to enact yet another of those recommendations.
The Bill before your Lordships today therefore represents a most welcome opportunity for the Government to give effect to a number of significant but uncontroversial FAWC recommendations. To answer one of the points kindly put to me in a letter by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I can inform your Lordships that in anticipation of the successful outcome of the Bill the Government are preparing three codes of practice. We fully intend to discuss provisions for new regulations and codes with interested parties before their publication.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, I refer to Clause 2 concerning Section 4(2) on trainee

923
slaughtermen. The noble Lord asked simply why "a person" in that clause should supervise. Part of Clause 2 concerns the person eligible to supervise a trainee slaughterman. Through regulations we intend to make sure that that person is suitably qualified and apprised of welfare requirements.
The noble Lord spoke eloquently on conditions in abattoirs. Local authorities at district council level are responsible for enforcing the extensive legislation which already exists to provide for the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter. Officers of the state veterinary service also visit all slaughterhouses to monitor standards and give advice. Conditions are generally satisfactory. It is up to local authorities to see that standards are maintained. The agriculture department immediately investigates any reports of poor welfare standards that reach them. I hold the same feelings as the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and just as strongly as he does.
The noble Lord asked what action would be taken following research which showed faulty stunning that would cause pain. The Government commissioned research in this area because of concern expressed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council about the accuracy of stunning. We have the research results, which support the need for the use of head restraints to improve accuracy of stunning and which drew attention to inadequately powered pistols. We have accepted the need for head restraints, and the requirement is now included in the new regulations. We are including other findings of the research in the codes of practice.
My noble friend Lord Cochrane spoke about the knacker industry. The only effect this Bill has on that industry is to ensure that knackermen deal with live animals humanely. My noble friend will recall that we fought successfully against considerable opposition from other member states to safeguard the knacker industry during the negotiations on the EC directive on the disposal of animal waste. The Government are to be congratulated on their stand and on the fact that we have kept knackers going on a derogation. My noble friend Lord Cochrane also spoke about disposal of stock. As he made clear, the disposal of stock has nothing to do with the Bill. He may know that there will be an opportunity to discuss the issue in full on 15th May.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be aware that his point about EC proposals has nothing to do with the Bill. However, I understand that the Commission has been working on proposals for the protection of animals for slaughter. These have not yet been submitted to the Council of Ministers. I assure him that the Government are as anxious as he is to see progress made on these measures. We shall continue to encourage the Commission to bring them forward as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made an assertion concerning two commissioners. Quite frankly, I would rather not comment on speculation.
Both he and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, were concerned about religious slaughter. As they are aware, we discussed this fully in June last year when the Government introduced important new measures
924
to safeguard the welfare of animals being slaughtered by these methods. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, spoke about the Pig Husbandry Bill. As he knows, that Bill was withdrawn on 26th April. The Government will bring forward their own regulations at an early date and the draft regulations reflect exactly the provisions of the revised Bill. Mention was made of slaughter of the type used by the splendid —though not in this context—Gurkhas. But that is outside the scope of the Bill. The legislation we are amending applies to slaughter in slaughter premises. The noble Viscount also mentioned the slaughter of animals in traffic accidents. I am afraid that that is also outside the scope of the Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made a most peculiar series of comparisons to which, as a golfer, I took great exception. He said that learning slaughter on the job was not good enough, but some very good caddies have become great champions. The Government intend to bring forward proposals on training slaughtermen as soon as possible, but I cannot give a date at this stage. I should make clear that we intend fully to discuss the provisions of any new regulations with interested parties.
I think that that about wraps up all the questions that I was asked. I have not done too badly. I wish to assure my noble friend that his Bill has full government support and we wish it a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she would be kind enough to answer.one further question which I put to her. She kindly answered us all at great length and we appreciate the trouble she has taken. However, I asked her to make clear whether the Government reject any of the major recommendations of the 1984 report. If so, we know what we must press for. Will the report that will be put in the Library, for example, indicate clearly whether the Government reject any of the major recommendations of the 1984 report?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord waits until the report is in the Library, when he can come back to me. It is my understanding that no major issue in the report is to be rejected.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his generous remarks about me. With no disrespect to him, I wish to correct one point. The presidency to which he referred was of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, not the British Veterinary Association. I say this because my colleagues may take me to the slaughterhouse if I let it pass.
I have listened carefully to the views expressed during the debate. My noble friend the Minister of State answered points which were raised during the discussion and I am grateful to her for that. I am much encouraged by the positive points that were raised during the debate and the way in which the Bill has been received by noble Lords. The Bill has attracted the backing of all sides of the House. As has been said, the Government are in complete agreement with it. I

925
commend this Bill to your Lordships' House in the sincere hope that noble Lords will give it the welcome and the support it clearly deserves. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Road Traffic Bill
8.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 [Disapplication of sections 1 to 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for authorised motoring events]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 15, after ("be") insert ("included among those").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara I shall move Amendment No. 7 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 8. These are both technical amendments to the clause which disapplies Sections 1 to 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, for authorised motoring events in public places. Authorisations will be given by bodies prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
The first amendment puts beyond doubt that, although the regulations may specify conditions to be included in authorisations for such events, there is nothing to prevent authorising bodies from imposing further conditions of their own.
The second amendment clarifies the position on payment of fees in connection with applications for authorisation. The Secretary of State has power to prescribe application fees, but he need not do so. The amendment provides that he may instead simply prescribe the person who should set such fees, which would normally be the body authorising a particular event or class of events. These amendments simply provide for smooth operation of the system of authorising off-road motor rallies and similar events.I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 20, after ("amount") insert ("(or the persons who are to determine the amount)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No.9:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Authorisation of motoring events on public highways
.—(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1969 shall require the Royal Automobile Club, before authorising an event under the provision of paragraph 6 of the Motor Vehicles (Competitions & Trials) Regulations 1969, to refer applications to the chief officer or officers of police (in Scotland the chief constable or constables) of any police area in which the route of the event on a public highway lies partially or wholly for their consent.
(2) Without such consent no authorisation shall be made under paragraph 10 of the aforesaid Regulations.
(3) This section shall be brought into force by regulations to be made within twelve months of the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 concerns motor rallies. Since I joined this Chamber I have never heard this subject debated. The regulations that I seek to have amended date from 1969. At that time some attempt was made to regulate the use of public highways for the purpose of motor rallies. At that time lengthy statutory instruments were issued which divided rallies into several different categories. The instruments conferred rights to hold certain rallies which are a familiar occurrence in the motoring agenda. In dealing with rallies generally, the Royal Automobile Club was involved in the supervision of the rally programmes to a surprising degree.
The regulations provide that those who wish to use a highway for motor rallies should send their applications to the RAC. That body is under a statutory obligation to consult. Among those it must consult are the chief police officers of the districts through which the rally may pass, either wholly or in part. That gives the chief police officers the opportunity to comment on the suitability or otherwise of the rally that is proposed, and to advise the RAC of any special conditions which the police feel should be taken into account. However, the final decision rests with the RAC.
I must now declare an interest because over many years I have suffered at different times from motor rallies. I now seek to impose the overriding authority for granting applications for motor rallies upon chief police officers. The conditions on our roads have changed enormously since 1969. The volume of traffic on our roads day and night is much heavier nowadays. In my experience when a rally is to be held a person calls at my house and leaves a courteous note which states that such and such a motor club wishes to hold a rally which will pass through my area. Incidentally, the motor clubs may come from outside my district. They can come from another county or from another area. The rallies that I have suffered have been instigated by clubs based in other areas. The note that the clubs leave tells one roughly how many vehicles will pass one's house, and at about what time of night that will occur. The rallies all occur at night.
I usually find that at between 12 to one o'clock early on a Sunday morning, or a little later, about 60 cars will pass my house. The road is so narrow outside my house that two vehicles cannot pass. Therefore, traffic coming one way has to give way to traffic coming in the opposite direction for courtesy to prevail. However, when 60 cars come past in one direction, the traffic coming in the opposite direction is in difficulty. In 1969 the dead of night at the weekend may have been a deader night than it is now in terms of the volume of traffic. Nowadays, many people travel by car at night over the weekend.
The police have been fully informed of local feeling. The police let the RAC know those feelings. On one occasion a rally was allowed to continue and on another occasion it was abandoned. A further note was left at my house. It came from an entirely new source a long way away from my house. The note

927
stated that the motor club wished to hold a navigational rally. Presumably the rally was aimed at people who wished to learn to navigate around the countryside. Those whose house the rally was to pass could not obtain the whole route of that rally. Householders were merely informed that the rally would pass their houses. On one such occasion the police became interested in a rally because a public protest took place at one point on the route, and that concerned the police greatly.
My gall rose to such an extent on one occasion that I threatened to block the road and put up with the consequences. It was intolerable that people could select a lane which was built some hundreds of years ago for horses and carts and use it for a stream of 60 cars. I sat up all night to time them and the interval between one car and another as they went by. I noted what gear changing was necessary because of the level of the lane. I made my views very well known to the police and others.
I have received nothing but courtesy from the RAC. I am not grumbling about that. The police have been apologetic about having no power, though they think that something should be done. Their only powers are those that they have in the course of their duty in relation to traffic control or threats to the peace, for example. They are not in charge of the rally.
The chief police officers know the traffic and road conditions. On behalf of the citizens in their area, they are in a position to exercise the authority to say that a rally is unsuitable for a particular time or area, and to refuse to give permission for it to take place. That is not an irksome request. Who is to be in charge? It is certainly not the RAC, which may not know the route. I have sometimes wondered whether the people who authorise rallies know the roads on which the cars will travel and the congestion that may be caused because of the bends of the road, the camber of the road and the banks on each side of the road. If a car goes off a single-track road it goes into the bank and traffic is held up in both directions. I have experienced such delays.
I am not complaining only about my own interest in the matter. Other people have suffered too. Therefore I want the regulations to be amended to require the sanction of the chief police officer of the area concerned, as stated in the current regulations; their consent must be a condition of the granting of the application. I do not desire to interfere, but there is a limit to the way in which roads can be used for purposes other than normal traffic and communication by car.
I conclude with another example from my area. There is a road which goes through a little countryside and a little woodland. It is a well laid road with road lines and everything. There is nothing wrong with it; it is a good road. I noticed tyre marks on the road which indicated braking. Every now and then there was a long run of scorched surface along a mile of the road. I wondered what had happened; had a drunken driver gone down the road with a lorry? Do you know, my Lords, what I discovered? The local fire brigade were testing the brakes of fire engines on that road. That is all very well, but those tyres were not doing the
928
road any good—and we pay for the roads as well as for the fire engines. I made my representations to a suitable quarter and that nuisance seems to have stopped. Where they are testing the brakes of the fire engines now I do not know, but they are not doing it on that road. To make such obviously unsuitable use of the road reflects badly on the fire authority.
I have stated my case. I do not think that I am being unreasonable. I am bringing the matter before the Committee years after my interest was first involved. I am not complaining about anything that has happened recently because the last event from a Hampshire centre avoided the route that I had complained about.
Who else is suffering throughout the country? It is true that the number of rallies authorised has diminished. The RAC authorised 254 and 253 motor rallies in 1988 and 1989 respectively. The number of authorisations issued has fallen steadily since the peak of 765 authorisations in 1970, which was just five years after the regulations had been brought in. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should perhaps begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for missing the first minute of his speech. However, I do not think that I missed any of the substance of what lies behind the amendment.
I remind the Committee that I am a member of the Royal Automobile Club's public policy committee. I do not think that that falls technically within the scope of our rules and regulations, but I thought that the Committee should know that.
I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who, as he described, may very well have been disturbed on a number of occasions as a result of rallying. However, he will know, perhaps rather better than I, that the control of rallies has devolved upon the RAC in this country, and the FIA in Europe, as a result of legislation. That control has rested with the RAC, by virtue of regulation, since 1969. That regulation was amended in 1976 and confirmed. So far as I am aware there have not been a great number of complaints concerning the RAC's stewardship of that responsibility.
The amendment states that:
"Regulations made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1969 shall require the Royal Automobile Club",
whereas the Bill before us states at line 10 of page 3 that:
"Regulations under this section may in particular—
(a) prescribe the persons by whom, and limit the circumstances in which and the places in respect of which, authorisations may be given under the regulations".
It is strange that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should have picked out and should wish to name in primary legislation an organisation which is controlled by regulation, whereas the Bill speaks only of the prescription of certain persons without particularising any organisation.
It seems to me that since the regulations to which I referred—those of 1969—have been amended several times without a great outcry, either within Parliament or outside it, there is no reason why the noble Lord's amendment should be agreed to. Essentially, the noble

929
Lord seeks to alter that which has obtained since 1969 under the provisions of paragraph 10 of the Motor Vehicles (Competitions & Trials) Regulations. Under the terms of the amendment, the RAC, which has been responsible for organising, stewarding and supervising rallies in this country, would have to notify the chief officer of police to obtain consent. I cannot see the point of going back prior to 1969 and altering that which has obtained fairly satisfactorily.
The noble Lord said that there had been changes of road usage. Of course that is acknowledged. He said that, whereas previously he perhaps received a courteous note advising him of what may happen in the area, he has not done so. I shall certainly take that point back to the RAC Public Policy Committee and ensure that it notifies people who may be affected. As I said, I am sorry that the noble Lord has been upset from time to time.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has proved that the primary legislation before us tonight and the supplementary regulations should be altered. It is not unreasonable to recall that motor sports draw about £600 million of income and employ some 50,000 people. It is not worthwhile to subject them to additional constraints, which I do not believe will make any difference in the long run to the organisation and stewardship of rallies. What has obtained since 1969 has worked fairly well. I can see no good reason for making any alterations and I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I intend to deal with the matter briefly, but everyone will agree that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby put up a good case for his amendment. Obviously, we must take heed if there are cases of grave danger to the public. However, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with his knowledge of the RAC, I recognise that the rallies have provided opportunity for great improvements in car engineering over the years. Nevertheless, if there is danger to the public, we should take note of it.
I should like to ask two questions. I am not particularly conversant with the details of the 1969 Act and regulations. Do the highway authorities come into the matter at any stage? Are they consulted? If there is no mandatory requirement for them to be consulted, do the police consult them before they make a decision on any application? In the event of the police deciding that an application should not be approved, is there any opportunity for either the highway authority or the RAC to join in consultations with the police before a final decision is taken?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: This new clause suggests that motoring events on the highway should not be authorised by the Royal Automobile Club without prior approval from the police. Let me first point out that the RAC does not have any powers to authorise any events on the highway as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, recognised, which involve a race or trial of speed. We are talking about events such as timed events, the movement of vehicles
930
from one off-road competitive stage to another and treasure hunts. Drivers taking part in such events are subject to road traffic law at all times as well as the additional requirements imposed by the regulations themselves. The RAC is already required to notify the police that an authorised event is to take place.
Events of these kinds were first regulated in 1965 and the regulations introduced were based on the recommendations of the Motor Rallies Advisory Committee. It saw its task as striking:
"a balance between the interests of a sport which is enjoyed by considerable sections of the public … and the interests of the public at large, to whom in some cases rallying activities have proved an undoubted nuisance."
Its objective was therefore:
" … to ensure that motor sporting events take place only in such a manner as not to cause an unreasonable disturbance or annoyance to road users or members of the public generally or danger on the roads".
In 1969, new regulations relieved the police of the burden of authorising what the advisory committee called minor events, so that all events requiring authorisation are now handled by one controlling body, the RAC. Complaints are few. When considering applications, the RAC will consider whether the standard conditions laid down in the regulations or any additional conditions imposed are observed; whether the event might prejudicially affect the safety, amenity and convenience of the public; the number of events held or planned on a route; and the suitability of the route.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be reassured by the offers of help from my noble friend Lord Lucas. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the highway authorities. They are not statutory consultees. It is up to the police whom they consult when they are notified.
In general, the present arrangements are working well. The police have not indicated that there have been any problems with these authorised events and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I cannot agree that we should seek to place this additional burden on them.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I take that to be a rejection. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment in order to study the drafting. It was my amateur attempt to get an amendment within the framework of a mixture of statutory authorities and regulations. I was not sure how to do it, but the Public Bill Office put it in better shape and put it down for me.
On the second point, which is much more important, I shall consider not only what has been said, but the principle of allowing a private organisation to have the right of authority over the use of the roads. Such organisations may not be accountable. I shall not go into the matter now, but there is a principle here. It may have been suitable in 1965 when the prestige of motoring organisations stood high and the class of road user was mostly in the RAC class. Other people did not have cars. People do not realise that few people had cars in 1965 compared with the number of road users now.
I also want to look at the legal aspect of what happens if unilateral steps are taken by citizens to stop a nuisance on the roads and they either take the law

931
into their own hands or take proceedings. I shall consider all those matters before the next stage of the Bill. The hour is late and I have taken up enough time and am becoming weary of your Lordships' Chamber just now, so you will forgive me if I let it go at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Causing danger to road-users]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, leave out lines 22 to 23.
The noble Baroness said: This simple amendment proposes to make the new Section 22A of the Road Traffic Act apply to footpaths and bridleways. As drafted, the section applies to roads over which vehicles may be driven, whether those are busy dual carriageways or quiet unsurfaced country byways used mainly by walkers and horseriders. It also applies to paths where people walk by permission of the landowner, but without any right to do so.
The reason for this is that the term "road" is defined in the Road Traffic Act as meaning any highway and:
"any other road to which the public has access".
Bridleways and footpaths are defined in terms of the public's rights. Therefore, a permissive footpath is a road but not a footpath and the proposed new section will apply to it. It is anomalous that the public should be protected when walking by permission but not when a path is being used by right. The public need that protection. It is not unknown for objects to be placed on footpaths and bridleways so as to cause danger to the public. That is particularly important to horse riders. If the Government believe that the safety of horse riders and walkers is as important as that of motorists, I hope that they will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I well understand the concern of the noble Baroness, but I should explain why it is right that footpaths and bridleways should not be covered by the offence of causing danger to road users. The aim of the new offence is to catch people who obstruct roads where vehicles, their occupants and other road users are endangered largely because of the consequences of the speed they travel. That is not true in the case of obstruction either of pavements or rural bridleways and footpaths. I am not for a moment suggesting that such obstruction is defensible, but it does not normally cause danger and other powers exist to deal with the problem. It is not property a matter for road traffic law. However, the offence of causing danger does apply to cycle tracks which fall within the Road Traffic Act definition of "road" and are not specifically excluded by subsection (5). That is as it should be as there is a real risk of danger there. On the basis of that explanation I hope that thy, noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Lord will assist us by letting us know the other powers protecting people to which he referred.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My understanding is that those powers come under the rights of way legislation.
Lord Underhill: Before my noble friend replies, I should also like to ask the noble Lord a question. Perhaps I should have notified him that I was going to put this point. I understand that in the Committee of the other place the Minister said that the definition of "road" covered footpaths and bridleways but in this clause it does not include a footpath or bridleway. He added that the provision would not relate to a remote cycleway which was not analogous to a bridleway. Does this mean that if one has a cycleway not alongside a main road but running through the countryside it would not be covered at all and would be excluded in the same way as footpaths and bridleways are being excluded? If that was the situation it would be a serious matter.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: At the moment I am not in a position to answer the question with precision. I am advised that all are covered by legislation. I will make a point of finding out the position. If the indication I have given is not correct, I shall be pleased to let all noble Lords know.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful for the care with which the Minister answered the question. The amendment was instigated by the Ramblers' Association which had looked at the present legal situation with care. It is usually accurate in these matters. However, I should like to study what the Minister has said. If he is replying to my noble friend's question, perhaps he could let me have a copy of it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Restriction of delivery for sale by persons on motorcycles
. After section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
"Restriction of delivery for sale by persons on motorcycles.
23A.—(1) No person shall be engaged or employed for reward for the purpose of delivery of articles for sale by motorcycles unless he is the holder of a full driving licence granted as a result of a test of competence to drive.
(2) "Articles" in subsection (1) above shall include despatches, papers, packets and hot food (delivered for consumption by the purchaser in domestic or other premises) for sale.
(3) If a person is engaged or employed in contravention of subsection (1) above then the employer and the employee shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) A policy of insurance granted in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be of no effect."").
The noble Lord said: I raised this matter during the Second Reading debate. In that connection I drew attention to the fact that irresponsible drivers with the characteristics of despatch riders engage in rather aberrant behaviour from time to time, which most of us would recognise: for example, weaving in and out of static and moving traffic. In particular, I drew

933
attention to holders of provisional licences. It is in that regard that the amendment is tabled. I say at once that the amendment is tabled in order to obtain some understanding of the Government's position in relation to this. Certainly, it is not something I am proposing to press at this hour.
I have a number of questions that I would like to put to the noble Lord in the course of moving the amendment. Following the tabling of the amendment, a report appeared in the London Biker of April 1991. On behalf of the Despatch Association the chairman, Mr. Steven Smith, said:
"It would be the best thing that could happen for the industry if learner despatch riders were banned. Too many cowboy companies are prepared to take advantage of young riders, and this would put them out of business".
According to that report, I understand that the pizza delivery companies, which rely on a high turnover of young riders, might take a different view, but perhaps that is not the best source of reasonable ideas as to whether or not this proposal, or something like it, should be adopted. Perhaps the Minister can say how effective the courier code is, which the Department of Transport issued some time ago in conjunction with the Despatch Association, and whether or not it is working. Among other things the code says that inexperienced and/or learner drivers and riders should seek appropriate further training and qualifications including full licences, before engaging on courier work. That is very explicit. I am sure it is the experience of all of us that all too often despatch riders, or those engaged by pizza delivery companies and the like, are holders of provisional licences—at least those open and honest enough to display L plates. Heaven knows what others do. I hope that there is not conduct of the kind that I suspect may occur in a minority of cases. Clearly, the good despatch companies want to see the courier code working.
Another difficulty is the question of enforcement. The conduct to which I referred earlier is very much worse if it is undertaken by the holder of a provisional licence engaged in despatch riding. It occurs and it seems to be quite rare that people are apprehended for the sort of driving I described earlier. Yesterday I received a letter from the Association of British Insurers in which they express some concerns about the proposal I am making. Frankly, I believe those concerns are worthy of consideration by me. I would certainly want to cogitate further on what they have to say.
One of the points they make is that insurers are strongly opposed to the proposal that a learner motorcyclist's insurance policy should be invalidated if he undertakes despatch work. That could be in direct conflict with the statutory third party bodily injury and property damage cover required under Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is known that under the current procedures insurers meet all third party claims even where policy conditions have been breached, although they retain right of recovery against the insured. That is a good point, but I do not think that it is a point that is impossible to overcome with some redrafting of the clause.
Other points are made. One is that rider schemes are very popular among motorcyclists and operate with the minimum of formalities. To accommodate the changes which I envisage would involve insurers in very considerable costs which will be reflected in the premiums. I do not think that that is a good point. Clearly if there is a mischief which needs to be cured and if it were to result in increased premiums (it is not said by how much) it needs to be addressed. Without going into all the arguments that are adduced, I should want it to be put on the record that I certainly want to consider their representations carefully before the matter is taken any further. I welcome their invitation to a meeting.
I return to the fact that I should very much like to hear what the Government have to say in answer to the specific points that I have put to them. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: As a motorcyclist and one who uses his motorcycle almost every day of the year, I am somewhat sensitive to the overall reputation of motorcyclists—which I think is unfair—as a dangerous group of people. I suggest that motorcyclists fall into broadly three groups. There is the young inexperienced motorcyclist whose experience covers less than perhaps five years. Thanks to the pressure of groups who are interested in improving safety and the Government which have helped to improve and make compulsory learning schemes, casualties have fallen in that area.
The second group consists of the experienced motorcyclists with something over five years' experience. They are generally enthusiastic, safe and ride defensively. In fact, that is the group which is responsible for the quite dramatic fall in accidents with motorcycles that has taken place. It has brought them well ahead of the target set by the Government for the year 2000.
The third group consists of the dispatch riders. I am sensitive about dispatch riders. Every time I rise to speak in this Chamber about motorcyclists, there is always one noble Lord who rises to his feet rather angrily and asks, "What about the dispatch riders?" I have to fall back with a sigh and agree with him, if not vocally, that dispatch riders are a problem, as are those who ply their trade on motorcycles of whatever power, whether it be a small or a large motorcycle. That is the area which has not been dealt with effectively.
The amendment put before us goes a long way to assist with that problem. Against a background of accidents and the evidence that we see every day when we go out on the roads (whether or not we are motorcyclists) of the way in which those who deliver and carry ride their motorcycles, it is quite wrong that an inexperienced rider with a learner plate should be allowed to carry. It does not matter what is being carried, whether it is a pizza or a package. Indeed, I understand that later in the Bill there is an amendment to increase the use of bus lanes for certain categories of motorcyclists. If the Government agree to that amendment, I urge them to exclude those who ply their trade, whatever power of motorcycle they use.

935
I am not absolutely certain about the insurance aspect of the amendment. The noble Lord has already touched on that point. There are some concerns which need to be addressed about third party liability. It is a clever and ingenious way to implement the main drift of the amendment but perhaps there are some technical difficulties which do not make that possible. Having said that, I agree absolutely that it does not do for small motorcycles with L plates to go buzzing around our roads. They are a danger to pedestrians, cyclists and other motorcyclists. They give motorcycling a bad name and quite markedly increase the chance of accidents, particularly in bad weather in urban areas. I support the amendment absolutely.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for having raised this subject, as at Second Reading he indicated that he would do. It seems to me that we are not necessarily complaining about L plate holders or young drivers. We appear to be talking about abuses by certain sections of the motorcycling fraternity, loosely called the dispatch rider. It is a long time since I rode a motorcycle and I defer greatly on this matter to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. However, I believe that we should seek other ways to bring perhaps a little more orderliness into the commercial use, if I may call it that, of the dispatch rider.
That can fall into two areas. First, the ultimate employer should engage only those companies which have a high reputation and so perhaps ease out what are called the cowboys. If we go too far, it may be that we deny youngsters most notably—pizza carriers have been brought into the conversation and they tend to run on the lower powered type of vehicle— both experience and work opportunity. I do not believe that an amendment of this kind is helpful to them. The amendment has a good basis but we should seek to put right what is seen as wrong by means other than this blanket refusal.
The Viscount of Falkland: Before the noble Lord rises, I omitted to say when I spoke last that the danger aspect with young riders is that most of them ride to i deadline. They have a limited time in which to deliver the pizza or the package. The more pizzas or packages that they deliver, the more money they earn. That is one of the main problems with regard to learner riders. They have an incentive to drive quickly and to take short cuts, often going round the wrong side of bollards or islands in the centre of the road. They just do not have the necessary experience.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can well understand the sentiments of this amendment to ban learner riders from working as dispatch riders or from delivering fast food. As the noble Viscount said, concern about the behaviour of some of those employed in the courier industry has been voiced several times recently in this Chamber. While I share the noble Lord's concern, I am not convinced that legislation along the lines of this amendment is necessary in the interests of road safety.
Last June, the Department of Transport developed a leaflet jointly with a company involved in the
936
delivery of hot food. The leaflet Bike Sense aims to teach some basic road safety to those employed in the delivery of hot food. The leaflet was also aimed at their managers. In September, with the Despatch Association, the department launched the Courier Code, a voluntary code which again had the aim of improving safety on the road. Firms abiding by the code must ensure that riders and drivers are properly trained and hold a full licence before being engaged on normal courier work. In December 1990 the Government introduced compulsory basic training for all those who become entitled to ride a motorcycle or moped as a learner. These are important initiatives that I think should be given time to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked how the initiatives were progressing. I think it is probably too soon to say, as they have been in operation for less than six months. Obviously we shall keep a careful eye on the situation.
We must also remember that legislation, even if it were desirable, is of no practical benefit if it cannot be properly enforced. If an offence of the kind proposed by the amendment were to be enacted, there is no doubt that dispatch riders and others engaged in the business would fail to display L plates or trade identification marks on vehicles used for leisure as well as delivery purposes. In order to enforce the law effectively, the police would have to stop and check motorcyclists' licences on a widespread basis. In the absence of evidence of a threat to road safety, this would be a poor use of police resources and could have an undesirable effect on police/community relations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is rightly concerned about the riding behaviour of some couriers. The introduction of new legislation along the lines suggested in the amendment would not necessarily address the problem and would be difficult to enforce. The initiatives I referred to earlier will help to do so.
Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the amendment is unnecessary and that we should wait to see what effect the new courier code will have in practice on problems before seeking to impose further statutory restrictions on motorcyclists.
9 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that reply. One point that it is necessary to make with regard to the proposal is that employers hold a responsibility. The amendment addresses the question that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised about the pressures under which dispatch riders—pizza riders, or whatever they are called—continually operate. Young people—people who are in need of money—are all too often exposed to such unfair pressure.
I hope that the courier code and the leaflet on hot food will work. However, driving to the House as I do almost every day does not give me much room for optimism. I still see the most appalling driving. I hope that in a few months' time the Minister may be able to reflect on what is happening. Perhaps we shall have the opportunity to find out whether there have been

937
prosecutions for such riding. Such prosecutions are few and far between. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Construction and use of vehicles]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert:
("() In section 41(2) of that Act, at the end of paragraph (6) there shall be inserted—
"(1) for the fitting of inflatable restraints in motor vehicles."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment proposes that a new section be inserted in Clause 8, the effect of which would insert a paragraph in Section 41(2) of Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The paragraph deals with construction and use regulations, with particular reference to the fitting in motor vehicles of inflatable restraints commonly known as air bags. There is a small misprint in the amendment on the Marshalled List. The paragraph referred to should be (1) and not (m). I hope that that does not make the amendment ineffective.
My purpose in proposing the amendment is not to confer on the Secretary of State a power that he does not already possess to make regulations as to the construction and equipment under which motor vehicles may be used on the road. Under the 1988 Act the Secretary of State may make a regulation providing for the fitting of air bags in motor vehicles. A specific reference to air bags in the 1988 Act will, it is hoped, bring to the attention of the Committee, to manufacturers of motor vehicles and to the public at large the important contributions that air bags can make in reducing the incidence of fatalities and physical injury caused by motor vehicle accidents.
Perhaps I may first explain to the Committee what an air bag is and how it operates—I hope without employing technical jargon. The air bag is a safety device consisting of a gas generator, a fabric bag, and one or more crash sensors designed to protect front seat occupants of the motor vehicle. The air bags for the driver are stored in the centre of the steering wheel, and in the facia for the passenger. In the event of a motor vehicle sustaining a frontal or front angle collision, sensors located in the motor vehicle set off a gas generated mechanism which fills air bags with nitrogen gas. The air bag contains vent holes which allow the nitrogen gas to escape as the bag is compressed by the occupant of the motor vehicle. The whole operation happens with lightning speed. The bag is inflated in 1/300th of a second. The vent holes allow the bag to be deflated in 12/100ths of a second. Air bags can either be full-sized bags which may be as large as two and a half feet and 12 inches deep. They are designed to provide full crash protection for a belted or unbelted occupant. Alternatively, bags which pad the steering wheel are designed to limit head and neck injuries which occur in higher speed crashes even when a seat belt is worn.
What are the benefits of air bags? Common sense tells us that, given a choice, we would prefer to have
938
our faces and bodies hit with some energy-absorbing item such as an air bag rather than the steering wheel or facia of a motor vehicle.
I wish to tell the Committee what has happened abroad. Research which has been carried in the United States supports common sense. A recent report by the US National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration indicates that if all passenger cars in use in the United States of America were equipped with front seat driver and front passenger air bags, more than 9,000 lives would be saved each year and more than 625,000 injuries prevented. It would therefore not be unreasonable to expect over 1,000 lives to be saved in the United Kingdom, and a substantially reduced proportion of other serious injuries.
What savings does that entail for the National Health Service and emergency services? Although the air bag technology has been available since the early 1970s, the introduction of them in motor vehicles in the United States initially met with strong resistance from various quarters, including the car manufacturers themselves. However, over a phasedߞin period beginning in 1986, in the United States all passenger vehicles must be fitted with an air bag to protect front seat occupants; or a passenger restraint system which automatically clamps the belt around the front seat occupant. What has happened in practice is that the United States motoring public has come to recognise the significant safety benefits of air bag protection. The American press is now reporting the saving of lives and the reduction of serious injuries in hundreds of motor accidents in which the air bag has operated.
In 1989 Chrysler took the industry lead in safety by installing driver seat air bags in all its passenger cars manufactured in America. Ford and General Motors also recognise the benefit of selling safety and now offer the air bag as standard equipment on many of their passenger cars. By 1995 the great majority of new passenger vehicles sold in the United States will be installed with driver and passenger air bags.
As regards European car manufacturers passenger cars manufactured by Mercedes Benz, BMW, Porsche and Volvo which are exported to the United States provide the air bag as standard equipment. Japanese manufacturers also provide the air bag as standard on their luxury passenger cars exported to America. They plan to offer similar protection on their lower range and smaller motor vehicles. It is worth noting that the Japanese Government have requested Japanese manufacturers to provide for the Japanese market levels of protection equivalent to those offered on vehicles exported to the United States. The manufacturers have agreed to implement that request.
What is of particular interest is that, while some of the motor cars exported by Jaguar to the USA are fitted with the air bag, that safety feature is not currently available in the United Kingdom market. The cost of fitting air bags would not be prohibitive. The industry target cost in the USA for driver and passenger air bags is approximately 300 dollars in volume production. The equivalent sterling figure is £170.
There is no suggestion that the air bag should replace the seat-belt; it should be a vital supplement. According to the United States Department of Transport the air bag, or combination of air bag and seat-belt, provides better protection at higher speeds than does the safety belt alone. It will provide better protection against fatalities and serious injuries, including brain damage and spinal injuries. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I do not doubt that air bags have the advantages enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, However, is it not the case that they also have grave disadvantages? I understand that if an air bag inflates when the windows of a car are closed —in our climate that is most of the time, particularly as most cars are fitted with fans or airconditioning—the sudden pressure change can break the eardrums of every passenger in the car. No one would deny that that a considerable disadvantage despite the obvious benefits that may result from minimising injury impact. The air bags can inflate at a low impact, below the speed at which injuries would normally occur. If that is correct it may nonetheless be reasonable for people to fit air bags voluntarily. However, I suggest that it is unreasonable to force people to have air bags in their cars if when operated their eardrums are likely to be broken.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raises an interesting point. However, my noble fiend has illustrated a provision that might well be desirable. I am disappointed that, since seat-belts were introduced as a compulsory fitment in cars, the manufacturers have failed to improve their construction an I use in any significant way. For many people seat-belts remain uncomfortable, unadjustable and, as regards locking and unlocking, a matter of fear. Rather than introduce further legislation, I suggest that my noble friend's department should urge seat-belt manufacturers to spend a little more time and money on research and the development of seat-belts which are more acceptable to more people.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act already provides sufficient power for a requirement on the fitting of inflatable restraints, which are generally known as air bags, as my noble friend described them, to be included in construction and use requirements. To that extent, my noble friend's amendment is not necessary.
My noble friend Lord Teviot sounded almost as though he were making a commercial for air bags, although I am sure that he has no financial interest whatever in their introduction. Air bags are growing in popularity in the United States, where seat belts are less widely worn than in this country. In Europe, air bags tend to be optional extras in luxury cars. They are effective in frontal crashes, whereas seat belts are also effective in rear impacts and when a vehicle rolls over. Also, seat belts are cheaper. Therefore, air bags should be seen as supplements and not alternatives to seat belts.
The Government support all improved safety measures. They recognise the potential offered by air
940
bags. We announced in another place that we have commissioned research to monitor development into such devices.
I was interested to hear the statistics quoted by my noble friend as regards the advantages of air bags. I wonder whether those statistics are in addition to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I was interested also in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as to the possible disadvantages of air bags and in what my noble friend Lord Lucas said as regards improvements in the manufacture of seat belts. However, I must say to my noble friend that I have noticed considerable improvements over the years as regards the latter. My car has adjustments at shoulder level, which I did not have previously.
My noble friend's amendment is not necessary because the powers are already available under the Bill. As I have indicated, a great deal more research needs to be done—and it will be done—before we take this matter further forward.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Teviot: It had completely escaped my attention that the power is already in the Bill and that my amendment is unnecessary. If that is true, it is splendid.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about the disadvantages and I have not heard about those. I am sorry that I sounded like a commercial, but when one is introducing an amendment one must take trouble to get it right.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I do not wish this to be made law but I wish it to be put on the list of matters to be considered by the Secretary of State. This will be the 14th such matter and there are many other items on the list. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for mentioning the lack of progress as regards the manufacture of seat belts. That was hotly denied by my noble friend, or at least it was tepidly denied. He believed that there had been some progress.
Air bags have saved lives. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned the weather in the United States. The Americans are rather more careful about their health than the stoic Brits. They would not use air bags if they did not believe them to be safe. There have been awards for spinal injuries and brain damage exceeding £1 million, which is a great drain on the insurance industry. That in turn must be paid for by the man in the street.
However, I shall read what my noble friend has said. I shall be delighted if the amendment is unnecessary. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have given notice of a question which I wish to ask. There is a problem for drivers as regards the need to harmonise instruments and controls, particularly on motor cars, in the interests of safety. If one moves from one vehicle to another, instruments and controls may be in a

941
completely different place. It is then difficult to adjust easily to the new situation. Has the European Commission made any progress in dealing with that problem? If there has been progress, what is the projected effect as regards imported cars, particularly from Japan? Will they be required to comply with the provisions if they come to pass?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall try to deal briefly but comprehensively with the noble Lord's question. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of it. The EC and member states are working on a scheme to develop a European whole vehicle type approval. That will enable manufacturers to seek type approval in any member state on the basis of harmonised standards. That will take some time. There is no specific timescale for reaching agreement. At present all mass produced motor vehicles whether made in this country or overseas must comply with national type approval standards. These are based on standards agreed in the EC and other international organisations. Therefore, imported cars would have to comply with those standards. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Vehicle examiners]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("he considers necessary") and insert ("are required").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which I can take very shortly. We welcome the Minister's idea. I would like to know what he has in mind as regards numbers. For example, I know that the AMA will support moves to ensure the establishment of a vehicle inspectorate which relates to the numbers required to provide an effective level of service. That is what I have been told by that organisation and it is a view which I share. I would like to hear from the Minister on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The decision as to how many vehicle examiners are necessary must be for the opinion of the Secretary of State. That is what the law says now and that is how we propose to leave it. The amendment would not tell us how to determine how many vehicle examiners were required. That decision will always have a subjective element because a great deal of enforcement of vehicle standards is carried out by the police. I can however assure the noble Lord that we are satisfied that there are sufficient vehicle examiners in post to carry out their functions under the Act, both for annual inspections and for road-side checks. I do not deny that the number of examiners has decreased slightly in recent years, but productivity has improved. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not object to that.
We must also remember, so far as road-side checks are concerned, that output is not simply to be judged by the number of prosecutions for construction and use offences. Prohibition is very practically as much an alternative as a supplement to prosecution. Overall therefore I am fully satisfied that the vehicle inspectorate is fully resourced to carry out its
942
important responsibilities in relation to defective and overloaded vehicles. At present there are 440 vehicle examiners in the vehicle inspectorate. There are 220 traffic examiners who are appointed as vehicle examiners but who carry out largely non-technical work. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister appears to be saying that present numbers will suffice. I am not at all happy about that situation. I would not wish to comment about that proposition in too detailed a way at this hour. I worry about the number of people engaged in this kind of pursuit and many others who are there to invigilate adherence to the law. It does not happen sufficiently in a number of areas and I am not satisfied that it is happening here. The Minister has told us of the current position. He has also said that the Secretary of State has the power to increase the numbers but it looks as though he will not wish to exercise it for the time being. I shall look carefully at what he has said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Inspection of vehicles]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("(not being more than five miles from the place where the requirement is made)") and insert ("(not being more than five miles from the place where the requirement is made in the case of goods vehicles and not more than two miles from the place where the requirement is made and with a maximum delay of thirty minutes at the place of inspection in the case of public passenger vehicles)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment gives new composite power to inspect public passenger vehicles and goods vehicles. My amendment asks for the testing to take place at a place which is not more than two miles away and for,
"a maximum delay of thirty minutes at the place of inspection in the case of public passenger vehicles".
The reasons for this amendment are plainly obvious. It is essential that a coach or charabanc—call it what you will—carrying passengers should be delayed for the minimum time. I say that for the following reasons. The coach may well be on a tight schedule, to catch a ferry or make a connection. Delays could affect, in particular, elderly passengers —many elderly people travel by coach—as well as young children if the coach is sent to a testing place which is unlikely to have facilities. A delay could take a driver out of his driver's hours limit. A considerable delay could then follow before a replacement driver was found, thus causing maximum inconvenience by ruining holidays unnecessarily.
Recently I visited the headquarters of the Vehicles Inspection Funding Agency at Bristol. I was very impressed by the way that establishment is conducted. It was a very fruitful visit. I gather that no vehicle has ever been taken more than one mile. I am therefore not too worried about that aspect. However, for the reasons I have stated, I feel strongly that my noble friend should give the utmost consideration to the time limit of half an hour. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has made a very good case for his amendment. I noticed that he continually referred to the position of a coach whereas his amendment refers to public passenger vehicles, whether coaches, buses or whatever. That point should be noted. There is nothing in the amendment which changes the position with regard to heavy goods vehicles. That point should be noted by the Committee. The amendment seeks to impose tighter limits on the distance a vehicle examiner can require PSVs to travel in order to have them inspected. The noble Lord also includes a time limit.
I regard this as a quite reasonable amendment. I hope the Government will accept it. However, one point must be made absolutely clear. In the case of PSVs this provision should apply only when the vehicle is in service. It should not apply when the vehicle is not carrying passengers. The cause for delay does not then arise and the concern about safety will not be so great. It is when vehicles are in service that we war t them confined to this shorter distance and for the time limit to be imposed. I do not know whether that point can be dealt with at a later date. Perhaps the Minister will have some remarks to make on it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I understand and accept my noble friend's wish to minimise the delay and inconvenience to the travelling public by limiting the distance over which public passenger vehicles can be diverted for inspection and by limiting the time taken for an inspection. However, I do not believe that this should be allowed to detract from the primary task of ensuring that such vehicles are roadworthy. Clause 11 of the Bill replaces the existing separate provisions for goods vehicles and passenger vehicles with new composite powers of inspection. It is quite reasonable to allow for vehicles to be diverted to a place at which a proper inspection can be carried out.
Rather than impose one or two restrictions in the primary legislation, I believe the needs of passengers would be better taken into account by a code of practice on the arrangements for inspection of passenger carrying vehicles. The code could cover the maximum time to be taken for an inspection, and the arrangements for providing passengers with waiting facilities. It would have the advantage of being more flexible, or covering a wider range of matters and it could be revised, if necessary, in the light of experience. The department intends to develop a code for discussion with the Bus and Coach Council and the police.
It could also take into account the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that will provide a more flexible and responsive approach. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teviot: Obviously I am very pleased. A code of practice is exactly what I hoped my noble friend would suggest. The matter must be gone into in much more detail. However, I must take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It is true that I referred to coaches rather than buses. But there again, buses do not normally have to meet the same deadlines as coaches. Of course it is possible that they do, but as
944
for the dear old things that I used to drive, there was usually another one following within 10 minutes or half an hour. The thrust of the amendment concerned coaches. Nevertheless, I take note of the noble Lord's point.
As regards empty coaches, it could be a case of someone simply going home; but it could be a feeder and, therefore, most important. I do not want to exclude that possibility without further consultation. However, I accept what my noble friend said and look forward to reading the code of practice. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Seizure of Heavy Goods Vehicles
. In the Road Traffic Act 1968, Part V, there shall be inserted after section 60 new sections as follows—
"Seizure of Vehicles.
60A. A vehicle used in contravention of section 60 of this Act shall, on the laying of information of such use by an officer before a licensing authority and on the subsequent direction of that licensing authority, be liable to seizure."
Interim Disposal of Seized Vehicles.
60B.—(1) Any vehicle seized by an officer in pursuance of a direction made under section 60A of this Act shall be delivered by him to the local authority in whose area the place of seizure is situated according to such arrangements (including the sharing of expenses) as may be agreed between the local authority and the licensing authority or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(2) While any vehicle seized under section 60A of this Act is in the custody of an authority in pursuance of this section it shall be the duty of that authority to take such steps as are reasonably necessary for the safe custody of that vehicle.
(3) In this section "local authority"—

(a) in relation to England, means the council of a county, a metropolitan district or London Borough or the Common Council of the City of London;

(b) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county;

(c) in relation to Scotland, means the local highway authority."

Ultimate Disposal of seized Vehicles.
60C.—(1) A vehicle seized under section 60A of this Act shall on an application made for the purpose by its registered keeper or its owner to the licensing authority who authorised the seizure be returned to its registered keeper or, on proof thereof, its owner within one year of its seizure and provided at the time of such application it shall be—

(a) an "authorised vehicle" as defined in section 92(1) of this Act, or

(b) on proof thereof, a vehicle the declared use of which is exempted from the provisions of section 60 of this Act,

and provided that any expenses aforementioned in section 60B(1) of this Act arising from the safe custody of that vehicle or any fees arising therefrom as from time to time be determined by the Secretary of State have been paid by the applicant.
(2) If not reclaimed under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section a vehicle seized under section 60A of

945
this Act may be disposed of after one year from the date of seizure in accordance with instructions as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary of State."
Right of Appeal.
60D.—(1) Where a vehicle is seized under section 60A of this Act and within six months of the date on which it was seized no person has been charged since that date with an offence in relation to that vehicle under section 60 of this Act and that vehicle is still detained, a magistrates court shall, on an application for restitution made for the purpose by the registered keeper or, by the owner or, by the person from whom the vehicle was seized or, by an officer, make such order respecting the disposal of the vehicle and award such reasonable costs as the court may determine.
(2) Any proceedings in Scotland under this section shall be taken by way of summary application in the sheriff court; and in the application of this section to Scotland references to costs shall be construed as expenses."
Interpretation.
60E.—In section 60A, section 60B and in section 60D of this Act an "officer" means an examiner appointed under section 68 of the Road Traffic Act 1968 and any person authorised for the purposes of the aforesaid sections by the licensing authority for any area."").
The noble Lord said: We welcome the legislative changes projected in the Bill. We certainly hope, as does the Minister, that they will lead to an improvement in the way in which vehicle and motoring offences are enforced. However, the Minister will know that licensed operators of commercial vehicles have expressed considerable concern that there is no provision in the Bill which would have the effect of containing the activities of those who operate heavy goods vehicles for hire or reward and who operate on their own account illegally. Official authorisation to operate goods vehicles is required by the Transport Act 1968, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1974 and the Transport Act 1982. There were further regulations in 1984 which are also relevant.
The fact is that bona fide operators are worried because they know that the operations of the cowboys —all too often illegal operations—prejudice public safety. They have a bad effect on the environment, they avoid proper vehicle inspection and they distort fair competition. Those are very serious matters. They want to see a level playing field—to use that awful term which is imported into every argument about the European Community. However, that is what they want and it is something which they do not have at present.
One of the problems is that a vehicle operator who behaves in that sort of way and who chooses to ignore the requirements of the law may be able to operate for gain almost indefinitely. The problem was the subject of the BBC television programme "Watchdog" only recently. Moreover, the process of law for road traffic offences is very slow. There is an extended delay first between the commission of the offence and then between the procedure of bringing the person or company involved to court and the final appearance in court. In the interim period illegal operators are able to continue to trade and they may even do so after a
946
court appearance and sentence, despite the fact that there may be irrefutable evidence of their status held by the traffic area offices.
There is a loophole. We are anxious to hear from the Minister how it may be closed. The extent of the problem was graphically illustrated by the traffic commissioner for the metropolitan traffic area. He became aware of the worrying extent of the problem back in 1987 and reported on the situation in his 1987–88 annual report. I shall quote briefly from that report. He said:
"It does appear to me from talking to the police and traffic examiners and examining prohibition notices that there are a substantial number of heavy goods vehicles operating outside the law. Many are located in the East End and engage on muckaway work".
I represented an East End constituency in the other place for 13 years, and I know that that is only too true. He continued:
"Some are relatively large companies whose O licences I have removed. They are well known to the police and my traffic examiners. Acquiring the evidence and serving summonses is not easy, and even when successfully prosecuted, fines often seem to go unpaid or are not a deterrent. We need to be able to impound the vehicles".
In the traffic commissioner's 1988–89 report he said:
"There are still many people operating lorries within my area who do not have an O licence, and several others who continue operating with impunity, despite having had their licences removed. Indeed, I am aware of one operator who has had three separate O licences revoked. I am left with the impression that the construction industry in particular is pretty cavalier about whom it employs if the rates are right. It is perhaps not surprising that we have the blight of fly tipping in London. There is a need for a concerted effort to deal with illegal operators".
The trouble is that no one has done anything about that problem. In October 1989, the traffic commissioner arranged a check of 5,500 vehicles in the East End of London. The remarkable thing is that that check showed that approaching 10 per cent. of vehicles were not displaying O licences. There were subsequent checks at the demolition of a large site in Horseferry Road—that is just an example—right under the eye of the Minister's department. It showed that 30 per cent. of the tipper trucks engaged were operating illegally. That is a serious state of affairs. I do not hold the Minister responsible. I do not expect him to venture outside Marsham Street to engage in such an operation. Though why not? It would be a useful effort, but I do not expect him to do it.
People choose to operate without an O licence to avoid the quality controls that the system imposes. Illegal operators tend not to maintain their vehicles adequately, and it is road safety that suffers. Fifty out of 100 vehicles given mechanical safety checks in October 1989 failed. It is also true to say that having decided to break the law in one regard, such people break it in so many others. They are likely to fly tip, to abuse the rules on drivers' hours, fail to tax their vehicles and so on. They are frequent offenders. They are recidivists, and that casual attitude is unacceptable. Legitimate hauliers, as well as the general public, are the people who suffer from such activities.
There is a clearly identified need to be able to strike at the illegal operators' pocket with the minimum of bureaucracy. The only viable way is for licensing

947
authorities to be given powers to impound vehicles similar to the powers of confiscation which HM Customs and Excise exercise. The financial penalty of losing one vehicle could be a real deterrent. In addition, if the law were to get round to imposing such a message it would get round to the illegal operators. The deterrent effect would be real.
The powers should be used only in the most flagrant cases and those which are repeated frequently. In order to ensure that justice is done, a right of appeal is provided in the new clause. There is an overwhelming case for action to be taken. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and, as I said after he spoke on Second Reading, I have a good deal of sympathy with what lies behind the amendment. He accurately described the current situation. He described who flouts the law and the other offences committed by them; for example, no road fund licence, probably no insurance, no test certificate, and so on. All this is wrong, as the noble Lord says. The commissioner's report he referred to is replicated, but not always in print, by other traffic commissioners up and down the country. I have some doubt about whether the remedy he offers by virtue of the amendment is right. It seems just a little severe. Going down this road of confiscation of property, in parenthesis I wonder whose property it is—whether it is that of the driverߞoperator or a financial leasing company. However, that is a detail. Whoever owns the property, to confiscate and impound it and, after certain procedures have been gone through, to dispose of it seems wrong.
It is evident from what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that in inverted commas, "something has to be done". I wish I could offer a solution this evening. I ask my noble friend the Minister to take the matter seriously. If he does not like the amendment, which appears at first sight to be complicated, perhaps in his answer or at some other time he could tell us how the department will consider removing this scourge from the haulage industry. It is unfair. It will benefit neither the employers of such hauliers nor the public if the practice is allowed to continue. In that regard, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord. However, I am not sure that I totally go along with his solution.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Marsham Street, which causes me to rise to my feet. I have seen the vehicles being clamped or locked by the police and taken away. To save my noble friend muddying his feet every day, as I do, walking down Marsham Street, I confirm that these lorries are being taken away. It is not my subject, but they are removed by the police on a fairly regular basis.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said about the unfairness and potential danger of unlicensed operations. I assure him that the Department of Transport is taking action to deal with
948
the problem. I can see the site to which he referred in Horseferry Road from my office window, although I must say in my own defence that since I have been back in the Department of Transport the site has been cleared. Only the vehicles involved in construction rather than demolition are currently involved. I suspect that they are of a different nature. However, that does not alter the fact that we take the matter seriously.
Special checks are currently being undertaken by the department's traffic examiners in co-operation with the other enforcement agencies. The idea is to target operators running their vehicles illegally and in the first place to prohibit any vehicles which are found to be overloaded or with safety defects. I should explain that a prohibition cannot be ignored; the vehicle is held at the place where it has been checked until the defects are corrected. Such checks are already being mounted in London, Birmingham and Manchester.
We are also looking at ways of making these checks even more effective by combining the information available to the different enforcement agencies and targeting them against rogue operators. Many unlicensed operators are in the waste disposal business. A new registration system is being introduced to control carriers of waste substances. We are exploring ways of linking this register with the computerised goods operator licensing system. We are also developing closer liaison and co-operation between the enforcement agencies, and this will in due course be supported by a computerised enforcement system of information to which all the agencies will have access under strict security rules.
Some of the abuse could be prevented through the co-operation of those who employ goods vehicle operators on contract work, for example, at construction sites. The department is itself a major employer of contractors on road construction work. Much work at building sites is subcontracted to operators, including some who are known to operate without licences. We are seeking the co-operation of the major civil engineering contractors in helping to stamp out this practice and to eliminate the problem of illegal operations.
There remains the proposal put forward in this amendment of providing powers to impound unlicensed heavy goods vehicles. I would not rule out this possibility in the longer term. We would, however, have to be very clear that the sort of measures that I have just described and the action already in hand are not proving adequate to deal with the problem. The power to impound and forfeit vehicles is a much more draconian measure, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out. I believe we need to be sure that all other measures which can be taken within existing powers have been taken before we can consider whether impounding is necessary.
The problem described by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is very real, and we are determined to tackle it. But in view of what I have said and the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall certainly examine with great care what he has said. However, the problem is that time is of the essence and I am not really convinced that the measures the Minister is undertaking will have the effect that is desired within a reasonable time. While we are in difficult economic circumstances the time for urgent action becomes more marked than ever. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said the action that is proposed is too draconian. After all, the action has been recommended by the traffic commissioner for the metropolitan traffic area. There is no more authoritative source than that. The commissioner has become convinced that other measures will not work. That is what gives rise to my scepticism about the Minister's remarks. After all, there are similar powers of confiscation, draconian though they may be, exercisable by Customs and Excise. However, as I have said, I will examine with care what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("HGV front underrun guards
. In section 41(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted after "In particular, the regulations" the words "shall make provision for the fitment of front underrun guards to such vehicles as the Secretary of State may prescribe and".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to bring forward construction and use regulations to fit front underrun guards to heavy goods vehicles. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has advised me that no fewer than 300 car occupants are killed in Great Britain every year in accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. Research conducted at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory indicates that 195 of those—that is 65 per cent.—are killed in collisions between the fronts of cars and trucks travelling in opposite directions. These accidents are particularly severe for several reasons and comprise the type of accident where seat belts can provide little protection. The council has furnished me with technical arguments stating why these accidents are so severe. However, I shall not read out those arguments now as time is rather short.
Protection for car occupants in these impacts can be achieved by lowering the front structure of the truck. Front underrun bumpers are relatively inexpensive to produce and can be readily fitted to most trucks. As the Committee will be aware, rear and side underrun guards are already a mandatory requirement on all United Kingdom registered vehicles. Therefore, a national performance specification could now be devised for front underrun protection. This amendment would make a significant contribution to road safety. I believe it is an amendment that the Government could readily accept. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have added my name to this amendment because I have some sympathy
950
with its aims. I have taken the matter up with my colleagues at RoSPA. I am informed that experimental studies at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory show that an energy absorbing truck front underrun guard with a ground clearance of 300mm can protect seat-belted car occupants from fatal and serious injuries at closing speeds up to approximately 40 miles per hour. I hope that something can be done. It might take a little time to bring in regulations but in the long term I hope that that can be done. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I too have sympathy with and understand the noble Lord's desire to see heavy goods vehicles fitted with front underrun guards. We agree that there are potential road safety benefits to be gained from such a requirement. However, I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the figure that I have is not as high as his. My information is that an analysis of 1988 road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles indicates that it is possible that about 80 lives could have been saved if all HGVs had been fitted with satisfactory front underrun guards. That would be a very useful figure to achieve.
As the noble Lord will be aware, there are international standards for vehicle manufacture, and we are therefore pressing hard to reach agreement in the relevant international organisations on this issue. We have made a proposal to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which sets the standards for new vehicles. The subject is under active discussion there and, I am glad to say, has received strong support from other countries. It is too soon to say when a proposal might be agreed.
The amendment is not, however, necessary. Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act already provides sufficient enabling powers for the introduction of such requirements in secondary legislation. As I have said, we are working towards an international agreement. I hope that we shall be able to achieve that soon. If we do, we shall not hesitate to bring forward regulations under Section 41. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord will realise that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Underhill: I am delighted to know that the Minister has genuine sympathy with the principle behind the amendment. I shall not argue about figures except to say that the figures which I quoted are those of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
It is interesting to know that there are already powers for making regulations. However, I cannot understand why we have to wait for an ECE regulation. I know that it would be helpful if all the ECE countries worked together, but we are dealing with vehicles registered in the United Kingdom and the saving of a considerable number of lives. While I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the Government will consider that it is possible now, as the Minister has said, to introduce secondary legislation to put into effect the intent of the amendment. I do not think that we ought to wait for general European agreement if we are in a position to

951
apply this by regulation now for United Kingdom registered vehicles. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Seat belts in minibuses
(". In section 41(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted after the words "In particular, the regulations" the words ''shall make provision for the fitment of seat belts in minibuses and".").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord adverted to this issue in response to a point that I made in this regard at the Second Reading of the Bill. He said then that,
"The Government would also like to see good quality, easy to use and retractable seat belts being fitted to all seats in minibuses and coaches. Indeed, seatbelts have been required to be fitted to all front seats on new minibuses and to exposed forward facing seats on new coaches since 1st October 1988". —[Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 477.]
He went on to say that the Government had been pressing the Commission for some years to amend the relevant directive to allow seat belts to be fitted on all seats in minibuses and coaches.
I think that the Minister has been misquoted as saying:
"As a result of that pressure, the Commission has requested that proposals should be put forward by the end of 1991".
I presume that that should read, "the Commission has been requested". I assume that that was what was requested at the Council. As Transport Commissioner from 1985 to 1989 I cannot recall, though I could be mistaken, that the Government were pressing for that then, but, be that as it may, I am glad to hear that the Government are now pressing the matter.
However, minibuses are used in this country rather more than anywhere else, as I understand the position. They are used particularly in relation to the conveyance of handicapped people and children, in connection, for example, with taking children to and from school, and handicapped people to and from places where they are able to work. To that extent, I should like to know why we are not able in those circumstances, as it is essentially a British problem, to apply that kind of policy, giving notice to the European Commission, here and now in this country.
I should have thought that it was necessary with regard to new minibuses. As regards older minibuses, perhaps it is something about which we can think again, but I hope that the Minister will use this vehicle to introduce a proposal of this kind as he clearly supports it in principle. Is there a Community reason which prevents that from happening? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to raise one query. I have every sympathy with the desire to have seatbelts in minibuses because a large number of casualties are caused throughout the country by minibus accidents. Minibuses are now frequently used in stage carriage work in and out of towns. Presumably the definition here w mild not apply to those kinds of minibuses which are used as small, what we used to call, corporation buses. The measure would probably need
952
some amendment even if the Minister was minded to accept it, which, as in the case of most amendments tonight, I do not think he is.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I wish that I could accept the amendment because, as I said on Second Reading, we very much sympathise with its objective. We should like to see the compulsory fitment of seatbelts in all new minibuses. Unfortunately, however, the current EC directives dealing with the fitment of seatbelts make no provision for such a requirement. It would not therefore be possible at present to enforce any domestic regulation to that end as we could not prohibit vehicles which were in compliance with the directive. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, regrettable though it is.
We have, however, pressed the European Commission for some time on this issue. Our aim is that the relevant directives should be amended to permit compulsory fitment. As a result, it has been agreed that the Commission should bring forward proposals with a view to possible amendment of the directives by the end of the year. We hope that they will provide what both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, seek.
I should add that, once the directives are in place, we would not need to amend primary legislation to enforce seatbelt fitment in all minibuses in the UK. I hope, with that explanation and our wishes that the Commission will proceed expeditiously, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: One of the reasons why I tabled the amendment was because it might help the Commission to take account of the fact that Parliament is concerned about the issue. I hope that will help the Government in the representations that they are making which we fully support. I hope that they will use their best endeavours to ensure that the Commission adheres to the timetable that has been set. The Minister will be delighted to know that I do not propose to bring this matter back on Report, so that is one item out of the way. I thank him for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Power to prohibit driving of unfit vehicles]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 33, after ("authorised") insert ("and qualified").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 to 22.
Clause 12 states that police constables should be authorised to prohibit the driving of vehicles deemed to be unfit. My amendment seeks to ensure that the constable is qualified. I must be careful. I am terrified about what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said about the last amendment, so I shall be careful how I couch my words.
It is felt, at least by the bus industry, that constables should have special training. I discussed that subject with the VIFA which provides courses for its own staff. I understand that it is ready to provide the same for policemen in the appropriate authorities. That authorisation for constables to prohibit is new. The

953
Committee will be aware that the total job of police officers is not that of vehicle inspection. There is no reason why they should not do it but they should be trained to do so. I gather that there are consultations taking place with the VIFA and the police authorities.
I would very much like to listen to the comments of my noble friend the Minister on the subject of the inter-relationship between the VIFA and the police. I hope he will take my point in all seriousness. Traffic policemen are very well trained to deal with motor vehicles, but in the case of a PSV (I will not stipulate the type lest I should get a rocket) inspection requires special training. I am sure that there are ways of doing it. It would be very nice to see written into the Bill a provision that policemen should be qualified rather than simply authorised. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I echo the view of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. By this amendment he seeks to ascertain from the Government precisely what provision they would make to ensure that constables engaged in this work are properly qualified and the training to be given to them. The noble Lord the Minister is always very good at sending correspondence. I am sure he will not mind my referring to a letter dated 27th March which he sent to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, in which he said the following:
"The police have their vehicle examiners and can call on the Department of Transport Vehicle Inspectorate where necessary".
Therefore the police already have trained examiners of their own. There will be no difficulty about those examiners being used where necessary, or appropriate training being given to constables. As the amendment says, it is important not only that constables are authorised but that they should be properly qualified.I hope that the Minister can give some information on the Government's attitude.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As regards the qualifications of authorised constables, I agree with my noble friend that constables who are given powers to issue prohibition notices should be properly trained and qualified for the task. That is a matter being discussed between the Department of Transport and representatives of the police service. I am confident that suitable arrangements will be agreed to ensure that only constables with relevant knowledge and experience will be authorised for this purpose. I believe this is a matter which should be left to the chief officers to determine, and that in the light of their discussions with the department it will not be a matter where a specific reference in legislation is necessary. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: I will do exactly what my noble friend says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am very grateful for what he said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 23:
954
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Testing condition of used vehicles at sale rooms etc
(1) Section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (testing condition of used vehicles at sale rooms etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (1), (3) and (4) after the words ("authorised examiner") there shall be inserted ("or authorised officer").
(3) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) In this section "authorised" officer means an officer of a local weights and measures authority who is duly authorised by the authority to enforce in their area the provisions of this section."
(4) The following section shall be inserted after section 77—
"Functions of local weights and measures authority.
77A.—(1) The functions of a local weights and measures authority include the enforcement in their area of sections 75 and 77 of this Act.
(2) The following provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 apply in relation to the enforcement of sections 75 and 77 above as in relation to the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, that is to say—
section 27 (power to make test purchases);
section 28 (power to enter premises and inspect and seize documents);
section 29 (obstruction of authorised officers);
section 30 (notice of test and intended prosecution);
section 33 (compensation for loss, etc. of goods seized under section 28).
(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as authorising a local weights and measures authority in Scotland to initiate proceedings for an offence.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 51. These amendments stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra, who would certainly have moved them much better and more comprehensively had he not been called away and the date of this debate had not been moved from the earlier date agreed upon. In fact the amendments relate to the provisions of the Bill that the noble Lord put through this Chamber last year entitled the Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill. The difference with these amendments is that they do not include clocking; that is to say, turning back odometers which, noble Lords will remember, is a matter on which we spent some time last year. That is not included because they are not directly related to safety, although I believe that there are safety aspects involved and the problem has not gone away.
However, the amendments before the Committee deal with unroadworthy vehicles. They do not seek to introduce any new offences. They help to provide for the enforcement of the adequate offence which exists in Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That section is used by trading standards officers to prosecute traders who have sold unroadworthy vehicles.
There are two difficulties which militate against effective enforcement and the first and second amendments seek to deal with those problems. The first difficulty relates to lack of effective enforcement. At present specially trained police officers and Department of Transport inspectors are authorised to examine vehicles on garage forecourts but trading standards officers are not so authorised. I understand

955
that the Department of Transport can show no instance of any prosecution for an offence and it is clear that the only occasions on which vehicles have been examined have been at the behest of trading standards officers.
The anomaly is that as soon as a vehicle has been sold and defects are brought to light, the trading standards officers can start to act, but they are not allowed to act before then. That seems to me to be a curious anomaly. Surely it would be in the interests of safety for such checks to be made before the vehicle becomes a danger to the new owner.
Noble Lords will perhaps have heard on the radio this morning the results of a survey that was recently completed. Trading standards officers and vehicle examiners visited 108 garage forecourts and tested 267 vehicles. The results were quite appalling. Sixty-five per cent. of vehicles of what might be described as MOT age on garage forecourts were described as unroadworthy and 79 per cent. of those were a danger to drivers and other road users.
To deal briefly with some of the figures that came out of the survey: in Lothian region 92 vehicles were examined and 89 per cent. of them were unroadworthy; in mid-Glamorgan 87 per cent. of the vehicles were unroadworthy; and in Humberside 64 per cent were unroadworthy. As an average for the whole area covered, which involved 108 premises and 267 vehicles, 65 per cent. were unroadworthy. The survey broke down the term "unroadworthy" into three separate categories: extremely dangerous, very dangerous and potentially dangerous. Extremely dangerous—defined as, "Do not drive your car in this condition. You will be breaking the law and risking your life and the lives of others"—accounted for 52 per cent. Within the category very dangerous—"May be illegal. Put right immediately"—there were 11 per cent. The other 2 per cent. might be illegal.
The vice-chairman of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration's Quality Standards Committee is quoted as saying:
"We have been raising our concerns about these issues for many years and now is the time for action to improve the protection for car buyers and road users".
I am sure that the Committee agrees with that.
As I suggested, it cannot be right that trading standards officers should have to wait until those dangerous vehicles are on the road before they can take action. The first amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend would extend their powers to allow them to carry out such inspections. In case anybody is worried about trading standards officers without due competence carrying out those inspections, it should be said immediately that they themselves would not examine the vehicles but would employ consultants who are competent to do so.
The Department of Transport has said that its examiners are expert and that therefore the two inspectorates should co-operate. That of course happens. However, experience has shown that the vehicle inspectorate cannot always respond to requests as quickly as is necessary. Nor can it always compete in terms of price. That seems a curious situation. It might be considered slightly strange that
956
a vehicle inspectorate, authorised to do such work, should consider charging another body to do its work; but that apparently happens.
The amendment enables comprehensive enforcement of regulations on garage forecourts to take place and thus to make better use of resources and prevent dangerous vehicles from getting on the road and jeopardising the community.
The second amendment requires those who wish to sell unroadworthy vehicles to put a notice on the vehicle to show prospective purchasers that the vehicle should not be used on the road until that vehicle is safe. I am pleased to say that since the provision was first introduced, the Government have recognised the need for that loophole in the existing law to be closed. At present, dealers who offer vehicles for sale which are unroadworthy can avoid prosecution by saying that all faults would be repaired before sale. In many cases, if you believe that you will believe anything!
There are situations when an honest dealer may wish to sell vehicles in an unroadworthy condition. I refer to sales between traders or to the public for use as spare parts. The amendment does not seek to interfere with what is a perfectly legitimate trade. It seeks to inform the potential purchaser that the vehicle he is buying is liable to be dangerous to him and to the public. The Government proposal requires that the trader shall take all reasonable steps to make the customer aware of that fact. However, that is a somewhat imprecise phrase. The amendment suggests what appears to us to be a reasonable step: to put a simple and uniform notice on the vehicle. In Committee in the other place, at col. 809 on 26th February, the Minister stated that this was one step that could be taken. It seems that the merits of the argument have been generally accepted. I hope that we can proceed with that.
Another concern with regard to new Clause 16 is that the seller of an unroadworthy vehicle is not required to have made it clear in a document of sale that the vehicle was in that condition. The amendment requires the seller also to give to the buyer a document indicating that the vehicle is unroadworthy and should not be used on the road.
The third amendment deals with those vehicles that have been written off by insurance companies. It reflects the views of assistant chief police officers. It contains three proposals. It ensures that motor vehicles which have suffered serious change pass a stringent safety check before being allowed back on the road. We are all aware that vehicles which have been very severely damaged may be cannibalised and welded together with parts of other vehicles and that that can be a very dangerous practice. The amendment also proposes that the registration document of such a vehicle should be surrendered to the DVLA and that the registration document should then be marked with the particulars of any rebuilding. The result prevents registration documents from such vehicles being used to hide the identity of a stolen vehicle. That sometimes happens and I believe that the practice is known as ringing. One learns all the time in this Chamber about matters of which we were not previously aware. As a

957
result of a voluntary scheme involving the police and the insurance companies such vehicles are recorded at the DVLA.
However, vehicles that are insured third party, including large fleets, are not recorded and therefore the records are incomplete. The same can be said for a scheme run by a firm called Hire Purchase Information Ltd. Insurance companies provide information about such vehicles which can be checked by subscribers. However, that company has decided that vehicles can be removed from the register providing that they pass a safety check. The fact that vehicles are tested for safety is laudable but the removal of information from the register means that informed choices cannot be made by potential customers. It is argued that if a car is properly repaired its previous history is of no consequence. We suggest that that is not the case and that the new purchaser should be aware of the full history of any vehicle that he purchases.
When a severely damaged vehicle is disposed of it is usually accompanied by the registration document; that is the piece of paper that the car thief needs and can acquire when he purchases a wrecked car from a scrap yard. The provisions in the amendment would prevent that by requiring insurance companies to surrender registration documents of seriously damaged vehicles to the DVLA.
In 1985 the Automobile Association found that one in eight accident-damaged vehicles were immediately unsafe and that 50 per cent. had defects. The hire purchase information scheme, which tests vehicles prior to deregistration, although in its infancy, is also finding a high proportion of vehicles to be unsatisfactory.
The amendment does not directly change the law but it gives the Secretary of State the power to carry out all the recommendations of the Association of Chief Police Officers supported by the Office of Fair Trading working party. The regulation-making power is included because many problems of definition must be resolved, together with ownership of the salvage and the safety check.
I have spoken at length because the issue is complicated. It is necessary that the Committee should address itself to the matter. The danger of unsafe vehicles has been illustrated by the survey published this morning. Many Members of the Committee and of the public will have heard about it to their considerable consternation. I hope that the amendments will go some way towards improving the situation. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased to indicate that the Opposition will support the three amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I am pleased that he has covered the ground fully and I intend to refer to only one or two matters. I have reread the excellent speech made on 18th March at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. In reply, the Minister took the view that the Government's provisions in the Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 were sufficient. The
958
noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. He considered that, despite the amendments, the proposals in the Bill require further strengthening.
The amendments were also debated in the Standing Committee of another place. Although the Minister appeared to be sympathetic to the points raised, he considered that it was unnecessary to extend the powers of trading standards officers. At col. 431 of the Standing Committee the Minister said that the Government saw no need for duplication on the matter. He added that local authority trading standards officers already had enough on their plate and were not skilled in vehicle inspection.
I am prepared to accept the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the issue because he is extremely competent and fully informed. He stated that the Department of Transport vehicle examiners and the police are not able to devote any significant resources to inspecting cars on dealers' forecourts. He added:
"Trading standards officers … spend much of their time dealing with the problems of used cars". [Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 431]
In drafting the Bill, I wonder how far the Institute of Trading Standards Administration has been consulted. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to today's report. There may be attempts to rubbish that report. However, information in the report is backed up by what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said on Second Reading and backed up further by the very detailed discussions which took place in Standing Committee. I believe that the Government should consider very seriously these three amendments and should be prepared to accept them.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It will come as no surprise to Members of the Committee that I shall oppose all three amendments. Basically, that opposition stems from the discussions which we had when the Private Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was before us. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will agree that it is a pity that we reached this very important series of amendments at this late hour because I do not believe that the Committee will welcome any long discussion on them at this time.
Perhaps I may try to encapsulate my objections as shortly as I can and we shall see where we go from there. I take the same view as the Government with regard to the powers which Amendment No. 23 seeks to give to the trading standards officers. I am not prepared to accept allegations that neither the police nor the Department of Transport examiners have not the resources to undertake the work required of them. Indeed there are facilities outside those two bodies for competent examining engineers to be engaged.
Amendment No. 23 subsection (2) states:
"after the words ('authorised examiner') there shall be inserted ('or authorised officer')".
Later in the amendment there is a description of what is an authorised officer:
"'authorised' officer means an officer of a local weights and measures authority who is duly authorised by the authority to enforce in their area the provisions of this section".
That seems gobbledegook to me. The examiner is either competent or an officer with competency in that area. Let us have no other nonsense about that.

959
Examining authorised trading standards officers have an immense volume of business. On numerous occasions we have had discussions in this Chamber on consumer affairs when the Opposition and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his capacity as president of the association, have claimed that trading standards officers need more resources to undertake their duties in consumer protection legislation. I recall that particularly as regards safety of toys. Therefore, that argument does not wash.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the survey. I read that. I have seen hundreds of surveys over the past 20 years or so. What the noble Lord did not say—perhaps because he did not have the opportunity to do so—was exactly what constituted unroadworthiness. It is quite unreasonable to expect traders to bring to a particular standard motor vehicles which they offer for sale which may end up on the scrap heap if they are not sold after 12 weeks or so. It is an unreasonable burden to expect legitimate traders to put on new windscreen wipers, new tyres and to repair trafficators. The trader may eventually scrap the vehicle, sell it into the trade or sell it for spares. So I do not believe that the second of this series of amendments is reasonable.
Who, selling a piece of furniture claiming it to be antique, or selling a used lawn mower or a car, says: "The piece of furniture will not stand on its four legs. It will fall over. The lawn mower will not cut any grass until you do this, that or the other. The car will not drive d awn the road unless you put on a new battery, four new tyres, fit a new gear box and back axle and a new engine". It is absolutely ridiculous to expect any trader to say, "This is not any good at all and you should not buy it".
Perhaps at this late hour one might amuse oneself and the Committee a little by referring to an eminent chairman of a very large company who so described his own goods at the Institute of Directors conference. I do not think that his remarks gave much confidence to his business. I do not think the requirements of Amendment No. 24 will give much confidence to the motor industry. Even when I was engaged in that industry I always maintained that there were enough people to give advice to potential buyers. I have in mind the motoring organisations and independent engineers.
One may have a motor car on a forecourt with tyres which re not as good as one might expect. It is not unreasonable that the replacement of those tyres should be part of the negotiation over the sale and purchase of the vehicle. I see no reason to stick notices on windscreens. The practicality of doing so is impossible. One may buy 100 vehicles in an ex-fleet disposal. One can contract to have those vehicles delivered to one's premises, which almost certainly will be in the open air. The vehicles are delivered. If it is held that purely by being on the forecourt the vehicles are on offer for sale, then someone will have to go round quickly and stick 100 notices on the windscreens saying that they are not for sale but, even if they are, they are unroadworthy. That is absolute
960
nonsense. I do not like the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has framed the amendment to deal with what he considers to be an impost.
I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 51. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, spoke about ringing. I shall speak about the practice known as the cut and shut job—the front end of one vehicle and the back end of another being joined together and never mind where the document goes in between. There are plenty of vehicles that have been in serious accidents which are most competently and properly repaired and which can represent good value. There are others that do not. That is not the responsibility of the motor industry but of the insurance company. Not four months ago I had a total loss claim. It was dealt with as a total loss because the insurance company would not agree to what I considered, as a licensed engineer, needed to be done; namely, the replacement of the steering gear. I suspect that that motor car will be repaired and go on the market without the steering gear being replaced.
That is not the motor trader's fault. The vehicle could be repaired anywhere and offered for sale. It is the responsibility of the insurance company. I suspect that the total loss claim was agreed to save hassle. As regards the document to be surrendered someone has to say, "This is a serious accident and a serious piece of damage and the repair must be certificated". Who is to do that? Who is to bear the cost of that? Ultimately, it will be the purchaser. If the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and his noble friend Lord Tordoff have grave concerns about this matter, we must find a different answer. The answer lies with the insurance company.
I see problems with all three amendments. I can understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for which I have some small sympathy. But I do not think that these solutions are the right ones for that problem.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Unlike my noble friend I have a good deal of sympathy with Amendment No. 51. I received a letter from the ABI which referred to four amendments. It rejected all but one; obviously, that of my noble friend on the Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Lucas knows far more than I do about cars. However, I believe it is scandalous that cars that have been almost written off should appear for sale on the street. If one gets behind such a vehicle one can see that the back wheels are out of alignment with the front ones. Although I have not consulted RoSPA on this matter I should have thought that it would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that for safety's sake it must be right that a written-off car is a written-off car.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for giving such a detailed explanation of the three amendments. I shall try to deal with them as best I can.
Section 77 of the Road Traffic Act already gives power to the police as well as to vehicle examiners to enforce the law on the sale of unroadworthy vehicles.

961
I am not convinced that statutory powers should be given to a further group of people—a group moreover whose expertise lies in consumer protection rather than vehicle safety. The department's vehicle examiners are fully qualified to inspect vehicles, whereas many local authority trading standards officers are not—they would need to take another person along with them. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, recognised that point.
The Vehicle Inspectorate can and does already co-operate with trading standards departments in joint checks on dealers' forecourts. I do not suggest that such checks are immensely frequent. But there was a series of joint checks in March this year involving Vehicle Inspectorate examiners at Cardiff, Grimsby, Stoke-on-Trent and Edinburgh, during which 251 vehicles were inspected. There are of course resource issues here. A new nationwide power for trading standards departments would certainly have to be weighed against other competing financial priorities for local authorities.
Moreover, it is important to note that the purpose of Sections 75 and 77 of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure that vehicles in use on the road are in a roadworthy condition. The aim is road safety. It is quite proper that this responsibility should lie with the Vehicle Inspectorate, along with its responsibilities for a wide range of activities aimed at enforcing vehicle safety standards, such as routine checks on MOT garages and annual testing of commercial vehicles. But it is also right that the inspectorate should prioritise its work according to the road safety benefits. It is not clear that the abuses which trouble the noble Lord constitute a major road safety problem. It seems to me that the powers which the noble Lord is seeking for trading standards officers relate essentially to the protection of consumers. That is quite properly dealt with in separate trades descriptions legislation. I do not think it would be appropriate to introduce these provisions into road traffic law.
I turn now to Amendment No. 24. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, the Government have already brought forward an amendment to Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 dealing with the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. That was in response to the concerns expressed in another place that it is too easy to avoid conviction for these offences using the existing statutory defence.
The existing defence is that the seller has reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on a road in Great Britain or would not be used until it had been put into a lawful condition. We have accepted that there was a problem. I am not convinced, however, that introducing specific requirements about the prominent display of notices in windscreens and prominent notes in sales documents are either necessary or desirable. I do not think that notices are the only way in which a seller can discharge his responsibility. Indeed there are some kinds of transaction where it would not be appropriate. My noble friend Lord Lucas has mentioned some. Moreover, we do not wish to encourage protracted
962
legal arguments about the meaning of "prominent", and the size of the letters used. It is by no means clear precisely what the notices would be expected to say. I do not think that this approach would work sensibly in practice. It could provide a field day for lawyers.
I am also not convinced about the need to make special requirements where a vehicle has already been sold. The problem with the existing statutory defence is with offers for sale, where a salesman may argue that the state of the vehicle would have been made known to the purchaser before the deal was completed. There is no evidence that a salesman can, under the current law, retrospectively avoid his responsibilities where a vehicle has already been sold. It is highly unlikely that he could demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on the road without having made clear to the purchaser that it was unroadworthy.
We believe it is more appropriate to have a general requirement on sellers. That is why we introduced in another place what is now Clause 16 of the Bill. That puts on sellers a clear responsibility to ensure that an unroadworthy vehicle offered for sale would not be used in its present condition, by requiring them to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a prospective purchaser is aware that its use would be unlawful. I believe that the words "all reasonable steps" constitute a term which is quite frequently used and understood in legislation. I feel that that approach is the best one in the interests of road safety.
I turn now to Amendment No. 51. The proposed new clause would enable regulations to be made introducing new systems of controls over damaged vehicles where there is no evidence to show that it would make a real contribution to reducing the toll of death and injury on our roads. I appreciate that recent reports suggest that vehicles repaired after accident damage may represent a threat to road safety. But we would need to think very carefully before justifying the introduction of new burdens on the insurance industry and the extra costs for government agencies.
Similarly, the new clause would not catch—and this is the real problem—all accident damaged vehicles, especially if the damage had not been notified to the DVLA or to an insurance company. That would probably, or might, be the case with a vehicle insured only for third party risks. No doubt some unscrupulous persons would go out of their way to conceal the previous history of vehicles. The result could be a hit-and-miss statutory provision which left motorists in an uncertain position. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is not an area into which we should jump unthinkingly. However, we shall keep the position under review.
I know that the police have identified a particular problem where stolen vehicles are given the identity of written-off vehicles. The DVLA and the insurance companies are voluntarily co-operating in a scheme to give information to the police which will help them to target these vehicles. Insurers notify the DVLA of the identity of vehicles which are most likely, later on, to be disguises for stolen cars. The DVLA makes that

963
information available to the police. I understand that the scheme is working well. I see no need for a new statutory requirement on that matter at this stage.
I have given a fairly lengthy reply to the amendments. I know that it is late at night and that the noble Lord will no doubt wish to read in Hansard what I have said. In my turn I shall read what he has said. In the meantime, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, replies, I wonder whether my noble friend will look again at Amendment No. 51. The Government seem to be in close agreement with the ABI over certain other matters that I shall deal with shortly, and about which they disagree with me. Can they not come to a firmer agreement about written-off cars to ensure that they do not appear on the roads, with the log books either having been burnt or sent back to Swansea? It is a major issue and one which was discussed in the corridors of power just a few minutes ago. We must look into the matter of cars which have been in serious accidents reappearing on the road.
I should like my noble friend to reconsider the matter and consult the ABI. The association is scratching the Government's back as regards drinking and driving, so perhaps both parties can now scratch each other's backs for a change.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I do not propose to respond in great detail, even if I were capable of doing so. I am here very much as a surrogate mover of these amendments. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that there is much to be commended in the amendments or, at least, in what lies behind them.
I am slightly worried by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, totally rubbishing the survey that was published this morning. Clearly, there are serious problems which the amendments are designed to address. However, to compare a broken down motor vehicle with an antique with a leg missing or a lawn mower.hat does not cut the grass to an adequate level is bizarre. We are talking about putting on the road vehicles that can kill and maim.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If the noble Lord will forgive me, will he say how many fatal and serious injury accidents have occurred in the past, whatever period he cares to choose, as a result of mechanical failure?
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord is well aware that I cannot give him the figure just like that. I dare say that the Department of Transport could not give him a figure. We all know that it is dangerous to put cars on the road which are in an unfit condition. Otherwise we should have no legislation on these matters; we should allow people to drive all over the place with bald tyres and bits hanging off vehicles. We would not bother with any construction and use regulations. I cannot follow the noble Lord down that line of argument.
At bast the noble Lord agrees with me on Amendment No. 51, which will be some comfort to my noble friend Lord Ezra when he reads the debate
964
tomorrow. I listened to what the Minister had to say. There was a great deal of it, for which I am most grateful. His suggestion that trading standards officers are concerned with consumer protection and not road safety may be slightly unfair. If we can use that additional agency to improve road safety, we should do so. It is clear from the figures in the survey produced this morning that the existing agencies cannot deal with the problem in the way that it should be dealt with.
It was suggested that the trading standards officers are not competent to do those jobs as the Minister acknowledged I dealt with that point to some extent —but they are accustomed to using other agencies. For instance, they check on the prices at the petrol pumps in garages. They do not do those jobs themselves; they employ other agents to do them for them. They are capable of doing that.
We are dealing with serious matters. I do not propose to go any further on this point tonight. My noble friend Lord Ezra and his advisers are much more competent to deal with the subject than I am. I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Physical fitness]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 37, at end insert:
("() In subsection (2) of section 96 of that Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) after the word "above" there shall be inserted the words "or that he has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion, or that he was involved in an accident owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed essentially to support police powers contained in Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Committee will recall that the Act provides that drivers should be able to read a number plate with figures and letters 31/2 inches high from a distance of 67 feet. That obtained in the 1987 regulations. Before that drivers were required to be able to read a number plate with letters and numbers 31/2 inches high at a distance of 75 feet. That requirement was set down in 1935. No one is clear why that configuration was arrived at in 1935, and, with the one change that I mentioned, it has remained unaltered ever since.
However, there is evidence to suggest that even with that minimal test of the acuity of drivers, about 4 per cent. (1 million drivers) fail the test. The ophthalmic institutions, with the co-operation of some police forces, have undertaken surveys, and the police have indicated that there are grounds for concern. When pressed to ensure that such a test is carried out at the scene of an accident or perhaps at another place rather more convenient, some police authorities have suggested that the powers in the 1988 Act are not adequate.
This small and simple amendment seeks to underline that the police have the authority and powers to have a test conducted at the scene of an

965
accident or some other place that may be more convenient, at another time. Then we shall be able to establish whether the non-scientific, but nevertheless fairly responsible surveys are accurate. It is hoped that they will lead to an international research programme which will establish the scientific basis for eyesight in relation to drivers' ability. I do not believe that this is a controversial issue. I trust that the Government and your Lordships' Committee will see fit to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: On the face of it, this seems to be a reasonable proposition, but having regard to some arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this evening, I begin to doubt whether I should accept it at first sight. I am only teasing the noble Lord. He said that there seems to be a problem, but is there any evidence that a substantial or significant number of accidents have resulted from drivers suffering from defective eyesight? I should like to ask both the Minister and the noble Lord that question. Is it felt that a provision of this kind would act as an incentive to people to persuade them that their eyes should be tested regularly?
I shall not embark upon the controversial issues that were raised in Question Time earlier today about the costs and the Government's policies; it is much too late. Those are reasonable questions. Incidentally, following an accident in Hampstead the other day, of which I happened to see the afterߞeffects, the alleged offender told the police officer that he ought to have an eyesight test. However, that is another matter.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I put my name down to my noble friend's amendment with which I have even more sympathy. Although there is little evidence available in the UK linking poor or defective vision with accidents, there is information from the USA which indicates that about 15 per cent. of all drivers who have been involved in a road traffic accident have defective vision. The vast majority of road safety practitioners agree that there would be an advantage in tightening the regulations which govern the level of required vision prior to issuing a driving licence.
A prime example of this is the issuing of authorisation to drive an invalid carriage. I am told by RoSPA that all that a disabled person requires in order to be permitted to drive such a vehicle is a letter from the GP. RoSPA told me of a case where a stroke victim who had lost 25 per cent. of the vision of her right eye and 50 per cent. of the left eye had been permitted to drive such a vehicle on the road. RoSPA has said that it would favour a further amendment; namely, the testing of the usable vision of all drivers who have been involved in a road traffic accident or, at second best, the testing of all drivers who have been involved in an accident where injury has been caused. Thus we would begin to build up a really useful data base to prove the efficacy of a better required usable vision standard. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I appreciate my noble friend's concern about the potential risks taken by drivers with defective eyesight. The amendment seeks to widen the circumstances in which the police may require a driver to submit to an eyesight test so as to include those who have committed a moving traffic offence or been involved in an accident, whether or not the police suspect them of having defective eyesight.
The powers of the police to require a driver to submit to an eyesight test are already very wide. It is a criminal offence to drive with uncorrected defective vision. Under Section 96(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 they may test whenever they suspect a driver of being unable to meet the statutory eyesight standard —that is, the ability to read a number plate at 20.5 metres. In practice, committing a moving traffic offence or being involved in an accident may well give a police officer cause to suspect the driver involved of having defective eyesight, in which case the power to test the driver's eyesight applies.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, there is no evidence that defective vision is a significant factor in road accidents. Indeed young drivers, who might be expected to have the best eyesight, have the worst accident record. I do not believe, therefore, that any extension of existing police powers to test the eyesight of drivers is necessary. I would not wish to place an additional burden on the police by giving wider powers which would raise expectations of a higher level of testing. With that explanation I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I confirm what he has just said in reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I have no evidence that bad eyesight is a significant contributory factor to accidents. However, the point is that one is trying to establish whether there is such evidence. I had not envisaged that my amendment would widen police powers and I have no great wish to place any greater burdens on the police than they already have. I should like to give further consideration to what the Minister said in regard to an effect that I had not intended. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Exception from requirement of third party insurance
. —(1) Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (which removes the requirement for third party insurance or security where £15,000 is kept deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court) for "£15,000" there shall be substituted "£500,000".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted —
"(1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

967
(1B) No order shall be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord 13rabazon of Tara I wish to move Amendment No. 26 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 27 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Teviot. This new clause responds to concerns expressed in another place about the provision of the Road Traffic Act which permits sums to he deposited with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court as an alternative to taking out motor insurance or a security in respect of third party risks. Under this scheme depositors are required to meet third party claims from their own resources. The provision and the deposit of £15,000 have remained unchanged since the scheme was introduced in 1930. At the time £15,001) was sufficient evidence of the depositor's ability to meet third party claims and bore some relation to the highest level of claim resulting from a road accident.
The replacement figure of £500,000 seeks to reflect the intention of the scheme in today's terms. The proposed sum of £250,000 does not adequately reflect the original intention of the deposit. The figure of £250,000, despite being a major increase on the current figure of £15,000, also fails properly to reflect the high levels of compensation now awarded by the courts in some cases. The new clause also permits further increases in the deposit by order subject to affirmative resolution.
The new clause is needed for the protection of road accident victims. I hope that the Committee will accept the government amendment as tabled and reject the amendment to it. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 27:
Line 7, leave out ("£500,000") and insert ("£250,000").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 27 I take note of every word that my noble friend said. I agree that the figure of £15,000 was very much out of date. However, it is the strong view of the Bus and Coach Council and the Freight Transport Association that £500,000 is rather a bitter pill and is too great a sum to be locked into. They feel that £250,000 is a more realistic figure.
I cannot speak for the Freight Transport Association, but the bus industry considers that it would he more practical, and cheaper, to make its own arrangements for insurance. It would also take out other insurance cover for calamities.
I shall listen to what my noble friend has to say. One does not want inflation. Inflation may go up, and that is a situation that neither the Government nor any one else wants. However, I am sure that the Committee will agree that a 33-times increase is too great. I hope that my noble friend will listen to what I have to say. I am sure that he will not agree with it, but I do not believe that there will be any takers —or very few takers —for the new arrangement. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I am astonished. If he were able to
968
justify the increase I should certainly go along with it, but an increase since the 1988 Act from £15,000 to £500,000 cannot reflect the change in economic circumstances.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is an increase since 1930.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry. However, the sum included in the 1988 Act was £15,000. The amendment reads:
"Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows".
The figure was satisfactory to the Government in 1988. The thought that must go through everybody's mind is, why has there been such a change to £500,000? It appears that the Government had not thought of making the change until Report stage in the other place, when an amendment was put down by two Conservative Back-Bench Members of Parliament. The amendments were not called for debate and the Government thought again about the matter. It is a surprising omission that they did not deal with the matter in the Bill without prompting from their Back-Benchers, and then the figure jumped to £500,000.
I do not propose to oppose the amendment, but I should like to hear a closer explanation of the position.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I understand full well the difference. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why the matter was not considered in the 1988 Act. The answer is that the 1988 Act was a consolidation Act.
Lord Teviot: I am very glad of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I have listened to what my noble friend had to say, but it is too late to do anything about the matter this evening or to take it further. Therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 26 agreed to.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition on insurance against certain offences
. —(1) Any clause in a contract of insurance purporting to accept liability for loss sustained by the insured as a result of disqualification under section 34 or 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 shall be null and void.
(2) No person shall provide, or offer to provide, a contract of insurance purporting to accept liability for loss sustained by the insured as a result of disqualification following the commission of an offence against the provisions of section 34 or 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
(3) If any person contravenes this section he shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: I have no intention of pressing the amendment tonight. It prohibits the provision of insurance policies offering protection

969
against the consequences of disqualification for serious traffic offences under Sections 34 and 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
I and others believe that this availability diminishes the impact of the penalty and respect for the law. The Road Traffic Law Review saw disqualification as the major tool for dealing with serious road traffic offences, as I know to my cost when, many years ago, I was banned for a year. Not only is it very inconvenient, but it also makes you realise what a fool you were. It makes you very conscious not to do it again because the second time hurts more than the first. So compensating the offender by that means would do much to lessen the impact of the penalty. A driver's advance knowledge that a serious offence could be committed without adverse consequences removes any deterrent which the law may have.
I understand that, in 1988, the ABI and the DTI announced that insurance policies which protected the driver from the consequences of disqualification for drink or drug offences were undesirable and should be ended. However, I am told that that voluntary agreement did not extend to all serious driving offences and even the new offences replacing reckless driving in the Bill would not be covered by that agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I share the noble Lord's concerns about the availability, even on a limited scale, of insurance against the consequences of disqualification. However, I am not convinced that the new clause would solve the problem. In considering the North Report's recommendation, we considered the possibility of legislation to deal with this, but we were not convinced that the legislation could be rigorously enforced. That is why we accepted the industry's offer of voluntary agreement, on behalf of all the insurance companies operating in this field, to bring an end to the worst aspects of these policies; namely, the cover they provide against drink and drug-related driving offences. I believe that the voluntary agreement, under which no new policies were offered after 31st December 1988 and all existing policies were phased out after 31st December last year, offers the most effective way of tackling the problem.
I do not believe that simply declaring such policies null and void would have any significant effect in practice. Enforcement would rarely be an issue and it would usually anyway be in the interests of both parties to abide by the agreement. I am not convinced that it would prevent such policies being offered and it would not be practical to create a further offence of entering into such a contract.
For those reasons we think it better to continue to rely on the agreement with the industry. I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he does not intend to press the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I am grateful for my noble friend's reply and I shall study his comments with interest. As I said with regard to Amendment No. 51, I hope that the Government and the industry come to a serious agreement about the effect of cars. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Information as to identity of driver etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Speeding Offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 17, line 39, after ("device") insert:
("including a tachograph which shall be sequentially numbered").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. I am sorry to have to go into detail on this amendment, but it is an important amendment. I must confess that I feel like going back to Amendment No. I dealing with driving when fatigued. That may be the state after the House rises. Clause 22 deals with the admissibility of certain evidence of measurement of speed by radar. Subsection (4) reads as follows:
"A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence … unless … the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and … any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied".
The amendment proposes that the possible device shall include:
"a tachograph which shall be sequentially numbered".
A similar amendment went before the Commons Standing Committee. Attention was drawn in that Committee to a previous Commons debate on the matter on 9th November 1990 in a Committee on Statutory Instruments. Mrs Ruddock quoted a speech by the then Minister, Mr Robert Atkins. I quote from col. 4 of the report:
"The idea of putting serial numbers on cards is a good one. I have not heard of it before and I confess that I had assumed that such a practice was already automatic. My officials advise me that we can consider the matter again, and we shall certainly do so. I shall take a personal interest, because serialisation on the cards seems only logical".
Mr. Atkins left the department. Mrs. Ruddock said that in December last (a year after that Committee debate) she received a letter from the current Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope. That turned down any move towards serialisation. The new Minister explained that the matter had been further considered by the department and for a number of reasons the serialisation of tachographs was considered not worthwhile. Those reasons are set out in col. 99 of the Committee report. It was pointed out that sequential numbering of tachographs was a practice in various European countries.
The Transport and General Workers Union is strongly in support of the proposal. It may be recalled that at Second Reading I referred to the importance of enforcing the law on tachographs. The union was concerned with the question of drivers' working hours and rest periods. This is of vital importance not only in the interests of drivers but from the point of view of road safety. The Minister agreed that there were some businesses in Britain which had adopted this practice, and he confirmed that serialisation was followed by the National Freight Corporation. It would be very interesting to learn from the Minister the department's

971
current thinking and whether or not there is any possibility of the European Commission adopting a directive on the issue.
Amendment No. 35 is a simple but important amendment which seeks to make a further condition as set out in paragraph (c). Once again, a similar amendment was considered by the Commons Committee, along with the amendment on tachograph serialisation. Whether or not serialisation is adopted, the issue in this further amendment is very important and should be a desirable procedure. Unfortunately, on reading the Standing Committee's report, I cannot see the second amendment being referred to specifically by the Minister. Therefore, in addition to comments on Amendment No. 33, I seek particular observations from the Minister with regard to Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Evidence from tachograph records or work records can in the normal way already be submitted in road traffic cases where it is relevant. That is the position at present and there is nothing in Clause 22 which would alter that position. However, I cannot see how the special provisions in Clause 22 are expected to work in relation to such evidence. First it would not be appropriate for the police to submit such evidence on the basis of a signed certificate because, unlike evidence from approved devices, it would not speak for itself. On the contrary, it would be not speak for a person to speak to the record and explain to the court the significance of the information it contained. Another point made in the other place when the EC tachograph regulation was implemented was that the information from tachographs could not be used to calculate precisely where a vehicle was at a particular time.
On the question of serialisation of tachograph charts, the Government recently announced its decision that on balance it would not be worthwhile. It would cause extra costs both to the industry and the department's enforcement staffs for virtually no gain, since enforcement officers can already detect the ploys which are used to circumvent drivers' hours requirements. It would put an extra unnecessary burden on operators to have to introduce new procedures for issuing and checking charts. Manufacturers' costs would be increased because sequentially numbered packs of charts could be guaranteed only by checking and making corrections at the time of issue. That would also delay the issuing process.
So far as concerns the employers' liability, it is already possible to lay charges of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a speeding offence. There would of course have to be substantial evidence linking the employer to a specific act of the employee. I am sure that is right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will agree that simple assertions that the?Fender was speeding because his employer expected him to do so should not be sufficient to secure a conviction.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Underhill: I shall study very carefully what the Minister said about the legal aspect, on which, not being qualified in the law, I shall need to have advice. The Minister has not explained why the National Freight Corporation sees no problem at all in handling the matter of serialisation on the tachographs that it uses and why certain Continental countries find that this is necessary. This is a matter to which we shall have to come back on Report. On that occasion we may have further useful advice from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who is well aware of the history of this matter in the European Commission. It was not always helped by British transport Ministers trying to get an undertaking.
I notice that the Minister nods his head. Therefore I say to my noble friend that we shall be on very sound ground when we come back at Report stage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can say only that the Commission was not always helpful in getting what the British Government wanted in some of these matters either.
Lord Underhill: That is sometimes because the British Government ask for the wrong thing or oppose the right thing. Naturally I shall not go further with this matter tonight. I give notice that this is undoubtedly a matter to which we shall return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 17, line 42, after ("approved") insert ("in regulations made").
The noble Lord said: My comments about fatigue earlier seem more true than ever. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 36.
The Committee may recall what I said in the Second Reading debate. I shall not quote it. I referred to a situation which arose a few years ago when, discussing a transport Bill, we considered the use of radar speed equipment. I said that I hoped that we would not find ourselves in the same position as we had done on that occasion. We endeavoured to move an amendment at Committee stage but the Government would not listen. At Report stage the Government would not listen. But eventually at Third Reading the Government brought forward a somewhat watered down amendment which we were very happy to see.
In his reply during the Second Reading debate to which I referred, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, mentioned the quotation that I had used and said that he could assure me:
"that the Bill already provides that the equipment used to detect speeding and red light offences will have to be type approved". —[Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 480.]
But one must look at the wording in the Bill. Subsection (4) says that:
"evidence shall not be admissible … unless … the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State".
Then in subsection (9):
"In this section 'prescribed device' means device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
Surely there must be general agreement in the Committee that this provision is woefully inadequate. The terms of the amendment which I ask the Committee to approve are much more explicit. On this matter the Royal Automobile Club has stated that it is in agreement with the use of the new technology — I quote from a statement which it issued —
"provided the equipment is regularly tested and approved to establish that it meets standards of accuracy and reliability".
That would be greatly assisted if the Committee were to accept my amendment. Frankly, I can see no reason whatever why the Government should not do so. They obviously agree that there should be a specified device —the one approved —but the provisions in the Bill are weak and those in the amendment are far more definite and explicit. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for raising the important question of the setting of standards for type approval and operation of these devices. It provides me with a useful opportunity to explain the proposed type approval process.
The proposed type approval process is a necessarily protracted one to ensure that the device is properly tested. It is based on the process already in operation for radar speed detection devices. We expect that it will involve the individual manufacturer demonstrating the device to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), and if they are potentially interested practical assessments will be carried out by one or more police forces. Those results would then be assessed by ACPO and if satisfactory, the manufacturers referred to the Home Office who will arrange technical testing for the device by an independent laboratory. The testing would be against the standard laid down in the relevant Home Office specification handbook drawn up by the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB). The speedmeter handbook uses British Standards in various of its requirements; it also follows international standards set by OIML (the international organisation of legal metrology). The specification will be subject also to approval by the EC. The results of the independent testing of the device are assessed by PSDB and a report will then be submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration of type approval. If type approval is agreed to, it is envisaged that the manufacturer will be required to sign a formal agreement which among other matters requires him to ensure the specification is not changed. Type approval will be finally given by the Secretary of State signing an order specifying the particular device. Once type approval has been given, evidence from the device is admissible in proceedings.
Noble Lords will appreciate from what I have said that we already envisage a rigorous testing process against high standards. The processes and standards involved are to be set out in handbooks relating to the specific types of device concerned and where British Standard specifications exist for elements of those requirements they are expected to apply. Moreover the handbooks will follow the international OIML standard and be approved by the EC. I do not therefore think there can be any doubt about the
974
standards required for the type approval process. And these will be openly available. The first handbook on speedmeters is expected to be available in draft to interested manufacturers shortly. It is subject to EC approval.
In putting down his amendment the noble Lord has also suggested that conditions should be prescribed about the operation and maintenance of approved devices. I can assure him and the Committee that we wish to ensure that the devices are used within their technical and operational capabilities. That is one of the reasons why we have introduced this type approval process into the Bill. However, we do not consider that reliance on manufacturers' instructions alone is sufficient. Operational standards are matters to be set by the police in consultation with the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) and these will be drawn up within the limits of manufacturers' instructions. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to give his approval subject to the conditions as to the purpose for which and the manner and any other circumstances in which the device is to be used. This provision ensures that the Secretary of State has the specific authority to tailor his requirements to the particular device concerned. I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will be looking most carefully at applications for type approval in the light of that power. I do not therefore think that this amendment is necessary as we shall be setting high standards in an open way which can be applied to particular devices and take account of the latest developments.
I hope that with that rather detailed explanation of how we have set about this matter, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply, which was very encouraging. However, when one compares it with the provisions in the Bill, one can understand the anxiety underlying the amendment. Nothing in the Bill gives the encouragement that I have received from the Minister's reply. If the amendment achieved nothing more, the Government's intentions will now be down in black and white.
We shall read carefully what the Minister said. At this time of night one's brain is not entirely clear. I still cannot understand why the Government are shy about dealing with a British Standard specification. It appears in Amendment No. 36 but the Minister made no reference to it —
Lord Brabazon of Tara: When the noble Lord reads my reply he will see that the words British Standard are used frequently. Where there is a standard we shall adopt it.
Lord Underhill: That proves that my mind is becoming blank. I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply and shall read it in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.

  THE ARMAGH FOUR: POSSIBLE APPEAL
  THE ARMAGH FOUR: POSSIBLE APPEAL
  WOLDS REMAND PRISON: OPERATIONAL SPECIFICATION
  WOLDS REMAND PRISON: OPERATIONAL SPECIFICATION
  CRIME TRENDS: RESEARCH FINDINGS
  CRIME TRENDS: RESEARCH FINDINGS
  PRISONERS: ACCESS TO INTEGRAL SANITATION
  PRISONERS: ACCESS TO INTEGRAL SANITATION
  PRISON WORKSHOPS
  PRISON WORKSHOPS
  WIDOWED FATHERS AND MOTHERS: BENEFIT VARIATIONS
  WIDOWED FATHERS AND MOTHERS: BENEFIT VARIATIONS
  INCOME SUPPORT: DEDUCTION FOR INCOME FROM CAPITAL
  INCOME SUPPORT: DEDUCTION FOR INCOME FROM CAPITAL
  ESTONIA: POSTAL LINKS WITH UK
  ESTONIA: POSTAL LINKS WITH UK
  BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP: REPORT
  BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP: REPORT
  TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND THE RPI
  TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND THE RPI
  WILD BIRDS AND ANIMALS: TRAINING OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS
  WILD BIRDS AND ANIMALS: TRAINING OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS