Sitting of 23 November 1992

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

    Single European Market
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC Council on improving transport infrastructure in order to maximise the benefits to be gained from the single European market; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): At its meeting on 26 October, the European Community Transport Council under the United Kingdom presidency reached provisional agreement, subject to the agreement of the European Parliament, to extend the regulation on EC transport infrastructure for a further two years. Investment in road and rail infrastructure is now at record levels in Britain and will assist British business in making the most of the single European market.
    Mr. Salmond: Given that the geographical limit of the Government's rail policy seems to be docklands and of their road policy the M25, what provision has been made to extend transport links for the single market for the world beyond Watford Gap? If it is appropriate to spend £1,700 million to extend the Jubilee line to nowhere in particular and £300 million to build 1 mile of motorway in Limehouse, why is it not appropriate to spend £80 million on electrifying the railway line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe and from where most of the funds that the Government have squandered over the past 10 years have come?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is being astonishingly and misleadingly selective, and he knows it. He knows that he is talking arrant nonsense. He is well aware that there is a substantial road-building programme from the channel ports all the way to Aberdeen, which will greatly assist Scottish businesses. I was in Aberdeen recently for a meeting and the chairman complained that there were still 20 miles of single carriageway road between Aberdeen and Paris. That shows the degree to which there are already motorways and dual-carriageway roads. The hon. Gentleman is aware of what is being done on what soon will be the M74, he knows of the Moss End terminal and he should know that the M25 is probably the greatest bottleneck to the Community for Scottish businesses. He is talking total nonsense.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to infrastructure on both sides of the channel, actions speak louder than words? If the Government, for entirely respectable reasons, decide that they must protect and restore the national heritage after the fire at Windsor, could they not use the same approach to improve our rail infrastructure? Will he study the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act 1929 to ascertain whether that might be appropriate in the current circumstances?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend must know that we are expecting British Rail to have record levels of capital investment this year and for the next three years. They will be well above the levels of the 1970s and 1980s. In real terms, they will be at twice the level of those for most years. There is a substantial investment programme in British Rail, including one for the channel tunnel, but funds cannot be unlimited. We must have a mind to other spending claims as well as a mind to the overall level of Government spending. The fact that capital investment is at record levels shows the priority that we are giving to British Rail.
    Mr. Martlew: Is the Secretary of State aware that unless £800 million is spent on the west coast rail line to upgrade it to the standard of the east coast line, my constituents —indeed, all those living in western Britain—will not be able to benefit from the single market?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the substantial sums that are already being spent on the east coast line. Some improvement to the infrastructure of the west coast line is taking place now. Falling revenues have caused British Rail to reconsider its overall plans for the moment.
    Mr. Horam: Is there any possibility of European funds being used for the channel tunnel rail link?
    Mr. MacGregor: Some European funds are already being used for studies on the rail link. It is for British Rail to put forward proposals for next year. Fundamentally, we need to study the overall financing of the high-speed channel tunnel rail link after I have received Union Railways' recommendations for a precise line. We are publishing the options and can then consider the financing.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposals to upgrade rail links from south Wales to the channel tunnel.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): It is for British Rail to bring forward proposals to upgrade the rail network. For channel tunnel services, BR intends to utilise the existing freight terminal at Cardiff for freight and to provide a night time passenger service from Swansea to Paris and Brussels. Passengers from south Wales will also be able to connect with the inter-capital services from Waterloo.
    Mr. Hain: The Minister must accept that that is wholly inadequate for the needs of south Wales. Does not the Government's abysmal failure to invest in a modern, direct link from south Wales to the channel tunnel—coupled with the 500 rail job losses resulting from the pit closure

    593
    programme and with British Rail's job loss programme —mean that south Wales is in danger of being left with a skeleton service by international standards?
    Mr. Freeman: On the hon. Gentleman's point about a direct link, I am sure that he appreciates that when the channel tunnel rail link is built between Folkestone and King's Cross, that will permit direct services via King's Cross on the Great Western line all the way to Cardiff and other parts of Wales. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support the channel tunnel rail link project when my right hon. Friend introduces proposals for consideration.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will know how grateful I am that our right hon. Friend has said that he will publish the proposals when he receives them from Union Railways. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is fully seized of the anxieties of all local authorities in Kent that the channel tunnel rail link will suffer from the present plans to run it overground? Will he also confirm that he is not prepared to sacrifice the environment of Kent for a cut-price line, especially as the building of major capital projects is probably cheaper now than it has been at any time?
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend will publish a proposed route for consultation as quickly as possible after he has had the opportunity to study the proposals from Union Railways. He will not subscribe to a cut-price route that abandons all sensible environmental protection. I give my hon. Friend and his Kent colleagues the assurance that the Government will carefully consider the best environmental protection possible with regard to the rail link.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister think that the proposal to upgrade the line south of London, which would avoid the need for services from south Wales and the west country to come into the capital, would be a much better alternative? Otherwise, will not London and, in particular, the area around King's Cross become the equivalent of Heathrow—where people can be stuck for hours because of the difficulties of air traffic finding a slot? Why do not the Government invest in the future rather than in short-term plans that will make London a nightmare for rail travellers?
    Mr. Freeman: I believe that King's Cross is a sensible terminus for the new high-speed channel tunnel rail link. The capacity created will definitely be needed at some future stage. That choice of terminus will also benefit those who live in the north-east and north-west.
    However, there is much to commend in the hon. Gentleman's specific point about routing to the south of London—presumably through Redhill and then on through Reading. I shall draw his comments and those of other hon. Members who have made the same point to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

    Speeding (Villages)
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce excessive speed in villages.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have today laid a draft order to remove the requirement that local traffic authorities obtain my consent before establishing a speed limit on any
    594
    principal road. In addition, I shall shortly be issuing a circular advising local authorities, when setting a speed limit, to place greater stress on environmental considerations and less on the need to show that the road has a poor accident record.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many villages in my constituency are bisected by busy roads. Do such villages have to wait for someone to be killed or for a series of serious accidents to happen before action is taken to control excessive speed?
    Mr. MacGregor: Many villages in my constituency are in a similar position. I have long been aware of the concern among villagers that it appears that they have to suffer serious road accidents before a speed limit can be allowed. I share that concern. I have changed the criteria so that that will no longer be the case.

    Traffic (Town Centres)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit mid-Staffordshire to assess the effect of traffic on town centres.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit mid-Staffordshire at present. But I shall be in the west midlands on 16 December listening to the views of all the local authorities on traffic problems in their areas.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware of the huge traffic build-up that occurs when travelling north and south on the A51 through Rugeley and Brereton? Is he aware of the even more desperate need of a bypass in Stone, which is an ancient and beautiful market town?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has pressed clearly on me the need for a bypass in Stone. I well understand his argument. We shall make an announcement shortly on our backing for local authority schemes in the coming year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall listen carefully to the clear expression of his constituents' views.
    I understand the need for a bypass in Rugeley. Our bypass programme is substantial. The Government have included 130 bypasses in the present programme, and there are dozens more bypasses in the local roads programme. So my hon. Friend speaks for many other constituents besides his own.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the problems of mid-Staffordshire are replicated throughout much of the midlands and the north-west of England because people are switching from rail travel to roads as a result of the poor quality of service on the west coast main line? Is it not essential to get the new rolling stock for the west coast main line as quickly as possible? Would not investment in railways be much better than putting one or two extra bypasses here and there, because investment in the railways would help the whole country?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's question is far from the subject of this question. We have a balanced programme with a substantial investment in railways. The hon. Member would do well if he could press the claims of his constituents as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) presses for his.

    London Underground (Investment)
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of capital investment in London Underground he is expecting to authorise in the coming year.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The settlement reached will allow investment of about £1 billion in London Underground, including the Jubilee line extension in each of the next three years. Investment next year in London Underground will be higher in real terms than at any point in the 1970s or 1980s.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my hon. Friend agree that London desperately needs new underground lines to relieve the congestion on London transport? The news in the autumn statement that the Jubilee line extension will go ahead, subject to private sector money becoming available, is good news. Will my hon. Friend confirm when he expects work to start on the Jubilee line extension?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right that we need to continue extending the infrastructure of tube lines in London. We made it clear in the autumn statement that funds for the Jubilee line are reserved. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is a matter for negotiation between the two parties to the partnership—the Government and the creditors of the former Olympia and York. Those discussions are proceeding. I hope that we shall be able to start construction in the near future, subject to those discussions.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Minister recognise that, in addition to the capital problems that London Underground faces, it has a severe revenue problem, which is one of the reasons why 5,000 jobs are under threat? Although I welcome the fact that tomorrow's impending strike appears to have been called off, on the ground that there will be no compulsory redundancies, does the Minister accept that the loss of 5,000 jobs will have a serious effect not only on safety on London Underground but on passengers' perception of safety and may lead people back onto the roads?
    Mr. Norris: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been here long, but it might be a good idea if he knew what he was talking about before he started on a rant of that nature. The first thing to establish is that the reductions in jobs are a result of the progress in contracting out services, which produces better quality services for passengers. The basis of the company plan always was voluntary redundancy and more staff on stations, not fewer. In short, I reject everything that the hon. Gentleman says, with the one exception that I join him in expressing pleasure that both sides have seen the sense of continuing to implement the company plan, as they appear from the recent announcement to have done.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend will have heard the welcome on both sides of the House for the Jubilee line new investment. In what way can he and the House be satisfied that the remaining funds for London Transport will allow maintenance and re-investment in existing lines to continue so that there is no deterioration in track or trains?
    Mr. Norris: May I direct my hon. Friend to the fact that investment in the next three years—excluding the Jubilee
    596
    line and for that matter the crossrail project, the funds for which are also protected—will be about £½ billion greater than in the past three years. That should give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks. We shall continue to improve the quality of the existing infrastructure, as well as adding to it through the significant projects that I have mentioned.
    Mr. Keith Hill: Can the Minister confirm that, as a result of the autumn statement, the long planned modernisation of the Northern line will be delayed for at least a further three years? Does not that mean that travel conditions for my constituents in Clapham and Balham on the already atrocious misery line can only get worse?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman must not be caught in one of those embarrassing political time warps. I suppose that he has read the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. If he has, he will know that the MMC singled out the Northern line as one on which it had noted a significant improvement in the service.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend has mentioned the MMC report, which says that £700 million per year is required for core funding of the London transport network—the underground and indeed, the bus services. Can my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that that level of funding will continue to be provided alongside what he said about the Jubilee line and lines such as the Northern line?
    Mr. Norris: The figure in the MMC report is London Transport's assessement of the cost of producing the decently modern metro service, to which the Government remain entirely committed. In this year's settlement, London Underground Limited will continue to tackle the backlog of under-investment which the report identifies. Clearly, it is for London Transport to determine the priorities for the investment at its disposal. I confirm to my hon. Friend that we remain entirely committed to the principle.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that in his autumn statement the Chancellor announced a 30 per cent. reduction in capital investment for London Underground, as compared with the figure that was announced in the autumn statement of 1991? The chairman of London Regional Transport says that the reduction will mean that the Northern line modernisation will not go ahead. It will mean the closure of Aldwych station and eventually the loss of 7,000 jobs in the supply industry. Is it not amazing that we have the most expensive underground system in Europe and that we have the angriest travellers, the angriest management and the angriest staff? That is a remarkable achievement, even by the Minister's standards.
    Mr. Norris: If I have to pick something to answer out of all those points, I make the point that I understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment at the level of the settlement, even as he expressed it. However, he will know that investment in the survey period will still be higher than in any year in the 1970s or 1980s. That represents a considerable investment measured in hundreds of millions of pounds—investment not merely to maintain the system in its present state but to improve it, and it excludes the commitment measured in billions to extending the system.

    Car Commuting (Central London)
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest information he has on the daily car commuting journeys into central London and the equivalent for five years ago.
    Mr. Norris: In 1991, the daily number of people entering central London by car during the morning peak was 155,000, down from 166,000 five years previously.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that no less than 17 per cent. of all commuter journeys in and out of central London are made by car, congestion and pollution are getting worse, and the danger to Londoners is growing worse as a consequence? Should not the Minister take steps to reduce further the level of car commuting in and out of central London and concentrate on reducing the cost of bus and train travel, so that this will be a cleaner, safter city in which to live?
    Mr. Norris: The actual figure for commuting by car is something like 14 per cent., so I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I agree also that our policy should be to contain and, where possible, to reduce car commuting into central London. That is why we devoted substantial funds to improving our public transport network—not only the tube but buses. Bus priority measures include the pilot red route, which I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees has produced considerable benefits. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I do not believe that the answer is simply to slash fares. That is a disastrous policy, which would leave the taxpayer with a huge bill merely to cover operating costs —instead of investing resources in improving the system.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that for many people, the car is the only way of gaining access to central London? Will he promise to hold an inquiry in respect of the roadworks on the M20, A20, on two points on the A2 in my constituency, and at the Blackwall tunnel that are all being undertaken simultaneously—that is, at the same time? Will he hold an inquiry, so that we may achieve ease of access from north-west Kent into central London?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a former education Minister, for pointing out the precise nature of his question. Using grammar as simple as I can muster, I may tell him that I entirely—that is probably the wrong word—rather, wholly accept his comments about the necessity in some cases to use a private car. It is just a shame that some single-issue lobby groups do not appear to recognise the obvious truth of my hon. Friend's observation. As to the particular problems that he mentioned, I will undertake to bring them to the attention of the appropriate officials.
    Mr. Harvey: Given the cautious welcome that the Secretary of State for Transport gave recently to proposals for road pricing, will the Minister give an undertaking that any revenue raised from any road pricing scheme will be used to provide an effective and affordable public transport alternative?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman will note that—subject to your allowing it, Madam Speaker—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be answering a question on that subject.

    Rail Privatisation
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure the continuation of British Rail's safety standards after privatisation.
    Mr. Freeman: We are committed to ensuring that high safety standards are maintained. We have asked the Health and Safety Commission to arrange for a thorough study of the safety implications of our proposals and to make detailed recommendations.
    Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern in south-east Essex following weekend press comment that the Fenchurch Street line may be subject to closure in the future for safety reasons? Will my hon. Friend comment on that, and guarantee that the £50 million made available to British Rail to invest new signalling on the Fenchurch Street line will be ring-fenced? Will my hon. Friend meet me at Benfleet station in December to discuss all those and many other problems on the Fenchurch Street line?
    Mr. Freeman: The press speculation is entirely incorrect. I have spoken to the chairman of British Rail, who has confirmed that the investment in signalling on the line has been approved. British Rail is now negotiating with the contractor chosen to install the signalling to ensure that the best possible terms are included in the contract, but there is no doubt that the work will proceed.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that British Rail has made it clear that it will be able to undertake only repairs as opposed to major renewal schemes? Is he prepared to state that the report that he is to receive will be published quickly so that the general public can assess the accuracy of his chaotic plans for privatisation?
    Mr. Freeman: British Rail will have the capacity to invest about £1,000 million next year—which will include investment in safety work—following this year's higher figure, which includes preparations for the channel tunnel.
    I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks: we shall publish the Health and Safety Commission report as soon as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received and considered it.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: We have heard that investment in British Rail is reaching a record level. Will my hon. Friend pass on to British Rail a message from the travelling public that they want the money to be spent on improvement in services? Will he tell British Rail that passengers are tired of hearing about British Rail's campaign for yet more funds and feel that, instead of holding out the begging bowl, BR should face up to the challenge offered by privatisation? Only then can the British public be given the real service that they deserve.
    Mr. Freeman: The Government have always accepted that investment constitutes one contribution to the improvement of service. That improvement can be seen on the Chiltern and Northampton lines, and will shortly be seen on the Kent link line. On Wednesday, with several other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be helping to launch the Kent link service officially. It is to receive £700 million of investment. As for management effort, the citizens charter has made a difference on Network SouthEast. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister now admit that the timetable for this unwanted and unworkable privatisation is in tatters? This country's financial settlement will lead British Rail to close stretches of track on safety grounds because it cannot meet the capital costs; on the other side of the channel, the French Government have just announced a grant of £4 billion for SNCF in the coming year—almost three times the British figure. Which Government have their priorities right? Should the priority be unwanted, unworkable privatisation, or decent investment in a safe public railway system?
    Mr. Freeman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. Sadly, however, he always seems to devalue the strength of his argument by exaggeration.
    My right hon. Friend's introduction of a railways Bill clearly depends on the early passage of the paving Bill. I think that all hon. Members would accept that, as a courtesy to the House.

    Red Routes
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making on the installation of red routes in Greater London.
    Mr. Norris: Following the success of the pilot red route, I have designated 315 miles of priority routes. I have set objectives for the traffic director, who is now consulting on his network plan.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that the red routes—the brainchild of our former excellent colleague Sir Philip Goodhart—are not being introduced nearly fast enough? When the economy revives, London will face monster traffic jams. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the red routes on the A316 Great Chertsey road and the A4 Cromwell road are put in as quickly as possible, that being the main route into London from Twickenham?
    Mr. Norris: As you will know, Madam Speaker, the Great Chertsey road is not only the road into London from Twickenham, but the road down which Bill Sikes took Oliver Twist en route to the blag in Chertsey. With that in mind, we shall of course deal with the matter at an early date. The traffic directors' draft network plan proposes implementation of that section during 1994.
    I shall be delighted to pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations and good wishes to Sir Philip Goodhard, who did indeed articulate the original concept.
    Ms. Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister reconsider his previous refusal to meet traders in my constituency who view the imposition of red routes in Finchley road as catastrophic? I quote from what they say: "If they are—"[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should inform all hon. Members that during Question Time they are not allowed to quote.
    Ms. Jackson: I apologise, Madam Speaker. The traders in my constituency believe that if red routes are imposed in the Finchley road there is no way that either they or their businesses can survive.
    Mr. Norris: As one who has spent all his life in small business—I did not intend it that way; it just turned out that way—I take very seriously indeed the idea that
    600
    businesses might have been adversely affected by the introduction of the priority routes. I have examined with the greatest care all the evidence that has been submitted to me in an effort to demonstrate that proposition. There is not the slightest evidence that priority routes have had any impact on businesses in the priority route areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I hear Opposition Members, from a sedentary position, claim otherwise. They are of a particular mind about red routes, but there is no evidence whatever for the proposition that they advance.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have heard is an example of the misinformation going around London about the red routes? Will he redouble his efforts to make sure that the truth about the results of the experiment comes out? Will he constantly point to the improvements through the reduction in pollution and rat running and also to the improvements in bus reliability and the number of legal parking spaces?
    Mr. Norris: I agree with my hon. Friend. Certain political positions were taken up on the matter by Opposition Members. The obvious advantages of the scheme now being evident, they are in some difficulty. They continue to peddle alarming disinformation—for example, regarding the supposed disadvantages to shopkeepers in the area. The reality is exactly as my hon. Friend says: improved safety, improved bus reliability and the much better management of traffic in the area, to the benefit of all concerned.

    Railway Manufacture
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take measures to ensure the continued possibility of the manufacture of railway locomotives and rolling stock in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have already taken such measures. In his autumn statement last week, my right hon. Friend announced, in addition to further substantial external financing limits for British Rail, new leasing arrangements which would allow British Rail to order an extra £150 million of new rolling stock in the run-up to privatisation.
    Mr. Bayley: I welcome that change. The Government are welcome to plunder the Labour party manifesto for many more of our proposals. Will the Secretary of State ensure that British Rail has the revenue to pay the leasing costs? Will he specifically seek to obtain the Chancellor of the Exchequer's approval to reverse the £40 million cut in British Rail's finances announced in the autumn statement the week before last? Will he also seek to ensure that British Rail's budget is not cut to £1,500 million in the following year and to £1,080 million in 18 months' time? Is the Minister aware that when his colleague the Minister for Public Transport was in York on Thursday last week he described as "bunkum" my fear that job losses would result from the under-financing of British Rail—just hours before the British Railways Board announced 5,000 redundancies? Or was the Minister for Public Transport not aware that those redundancies were coming? Did the Secretary of State not tell him?
    Mr. MacGregor: I cannot answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions or I should be here for 20 minutes, but I will answer some of them. The announcement that

    601
    British Rail made last week on voluntary redundancies—a commercial decision that it reached—had nothing to do with privatisation or anything announced in the autumn statement. Like any company with falling revenue and rising costs, it took action to deal with that. The redundancies will be voluntary, and British Rail has an extremely good record for so managing staff reductions over many years. As a result of the autumn statement, compared with the 1970s and 1980s British Rail will be able to make record capital investment of about £1 billion over the next three years. Part of the graph of the external financing limit reflects the fact that, this year and in the forthcoming year, we shall peak on rolling stock for the channel tunnel.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Charters
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new charters he intends to introduce.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave: Twenty-seven charters have been published so far. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will publish his courts charter on Wednesday, and five more charters will be published in the next six months.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Chancellor think that our democracy would be improved by the introduction of a voters charter, which would create an elected second Chamber and put controls on national spending at election time? The Register of Members' Interests for the previous Parliament showed that 14 per cent. of Labour Members had outside jobs, whereas 85 per cent. of Conservative Members had two, three and sometimes four or five salaries from outside. As name tags are a main feature of the charters, would not a voters charter benefit from having a list that hon. Members could wear on their lapels showing the companies that are filling those Members' pockets with money, so that voters and the House would know whether Members were speaking on behalf of their constituents or on behalf of Megagreed plc?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am afraid that the question goes a little wider than my responsibilities, wide though they are. I used to be a supporter of an elected upper Chamber, and if we had one with a solid Conservative majority, which would be the result, we might have less difficulty in that Chamber. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the other matters and will report them to the Leader of the House, who is the proper recipient.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he said today about the courts charter will be most welcome news to members of the public, witnesses and practitioners who have had to cope with the vagaries of the system? Will he accept my word for it that the way in which listing hearings take place often shows scant regard for those who need to use the criminal courts and simply means that important items are decided according to the whim of court listing clerks?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that my noble and learned Friend's charter will be widely welcomed, but I must leave it to him to present it on Wednesday. Many of my constituents, perhaps like those of other hon. Members, have been disappointed by the way in which they have
    602
    been treated by the courts whether as witnesses or as victims. The charter will be welcome in setting proper targets for the courts' treatment of people.
    Ms. Mowlam: Does the Minister accept that the letters that I have received from constituents do not talk about the wonders of the charter, but show that they think that the Minister's handling of it has made it more of a farce than an asset to consumers? Does he accept that his credibility as a Minister is in doubt when he claims, as he has in the House, to have no departmental responsibility for monitoring specific charters or for providing information? Despite that, he still believes that he is the Minister for open government. Surely his failure to stand up to Ministers at the Foreign Office means that he is not up to the job.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Member may have strayed into the wrong debate. If, as an Opposition spokesman, she did not receive letters criticising the Government there would not be much point in her existence. The point of the central campaign is to get charters established throughout the public service. That has been done and I think that the hon. Member will find that the White Paper that we publish on Wednesday will catalogue formidable progress in the past year.

    Research (South Dorset)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much Government-funded research is carried out in South Dorset.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's constituency of South Dorset has a wide range of important Government-funded research facilities. They are as follows: the Defence Research Agency at Southwell, Portland and Holton Heath; AEA Technology at Winfrith; MAFF Fish Diseases Laboratory at Weymouth; the NERC Institute of Freshwater Ecology at Wareham; and the NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, also at Wareham.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent list and for the research that he has done. Will he reflect that although we have an immediate problem with the reduction of military research and the research at AEA Technology, Winfrith, we have a long-term opportunity for both Government and private industry to come down and use this excellent centre of research in my constituency?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. The list shows the strength and depth of the scientific resources and the people involved in science and technology in his constituency. They constitute a major national asset.
    Mr. Connarty: As the Government have decided today to abandon one source of energy research—fast breeder programme—what money is being given and will be given to examining the potential for energy from bio-fuels? Can the Minister give us some idea of the key areas in that field which his new Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology will be targeting?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The ending of the long research programme on fast breeders has been judged broadly as being the right decision, sad though it is. I note the comments of Lord Marshall of Goring on that in the

    603
    newspapers today. There is other work going on, and on the very matter that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—bio-mass—early work is being done and more will no doubt be done in the future.

    Citizens Charter
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had in European Council of Ministers meetings on application of the principles of the citizens charter.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Although I have had a useful meeting with my French opposite number about the citizens charter, it has not yet been discussed in meetings of the European Council of Ministers. The citizens charter and the British approach to improving public services is, however, attracting interest in many European countries. We shall be describing some of our achievements at a Europe-wide conference on service for the citizen on 3 and 4 December. This is being organised in London as one of our presidency events.
    Dr. Twinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the conference. Does he share my sense of disappointment that our partners in the European Commission have shown insufficient interest in producing the levels of accountability and efficiency in the public services that we are learning to demand in this country? Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that they do show it?
    Mr. Jackson: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the problems with the Commission is that it is not a direct provider of services to the public. The charter concept focuses on the direct provision of services to the public. We certainly intend to ensure that the Commission is kept fully abreast of these important developments.
    Mr. Winnick: Do European Ministers not ask the obvious question: what use is the charter to so many people in this country who are losing their jobs and facing tremendous problems as unemployment continues to mount? Does not all this illustrate the fact that the charter is just a cosmetic exercise when seen by people who daily face the possibility of unemployment lasting months or perhaps years? They know that all this is just a mockery.
    Mr. Jackson: That is not so. In other European countries there is a keen awareness of the dilemmas—of the need to control public expenditure while meeting rising expectations of quality in public services. Our approach is seen as interesting and innovative in that direction. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the recent campaign in the United States, where Governor Clinton campaigned on the slogan of re-inventing government, involving the use of techniques pioneered in this country.
    We in Britain pioneered privatisation around the world; now we are taking the lead around the world in the improvement of public services.
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to issue his White Paper on the progress of the citizens charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: On Wednesday.
    Mr. Moate: Will my right hon. Friend put paid in the White Paper to any rumours that British Rail is seeking to reduce the standards and targets set in the passengers charter, particularly those in respect of punctuality, because it is said that British Rail is finding them too hard to achieve? Does he agree that my constituents and other travellers in Kent expect, as set out in the charter, the highest standards of punctuality, time keeping, regular services, and cleanliness—and the new rolling stock which was the subject of an earlier question of mine that was not reached?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend would expect, BR's targets for next year are under negotiation with the Department of Transport. The presumption behind the citizens charter programme is that standards should rise.
    Mr. Kaufman: What use are the charters to our constituents when, if we, as hon. Members, raise with Ministers cases involving social security, employment, immigration and many other matters, instead or responding to us Ministers shuffle us off to unaccountable quangos, agencies and units? When will the Government end that farce and restore the proper accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The accountability of agencies, to which the right hon. Member has referred, is perfectly clear. Chief executives answer for management issues which have been delegated to them, but the line of accountability to the House remains absolutely, as it was, to Ministers. That is the truth.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the sneers from the Opposition, the citizens charter is extremely popular? It gives people—council tenants, workers and hospital patients—their rights. There are no faceless people on the end of the telephone who will not give their names. This is what the people want and we are giving it to them. That is upsetting the Opposition no end.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time in the House, my hon. Friend speaks for the ordinary people of this country. The Opposition speak for the provider groups—the public sector trade unions and the old gangs who have not provided the service that we need.
    Ms. Hoey: Will the White Paper take into account the effect of the pay freeze, which will mean a cut in the wages of most workers in the public sector? Does the Chancellor agree that staff morale, which his Department concedes is so crucial to the implementation of charters, is likely to continue to decline so long as unemployment continues to grow and the Government have no strategy for job creation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Restraint in public sector pay is exactly a strategy for job preservation and job creation elsewhere. What is more, the new earnings survey shows that in the past two years public sector pay settlements have run ahead of private sector pay settlements by a significant amount.
    Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.
    Madam Speaker: I do not believe that it was the substantive question of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in any event, but I take his point.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Opposition parties, who are supposed to be so committed to freedom of information, are so opposed to the publication of information about schools' performance which has been so widely welcomed by many parents around the country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It was very noticeable that, of the nine leader articles that appeared the next day, only the Daily Mirror remained loyal to the Labour line. I do not understand how the Labour party can be against the provision of information to the users of a service, even though I now understand that the Leader of the Opposition was pushed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister into taking his line on the matter.

    Patients Charter
    Ms. Eagle: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made under (a) the patients charter and (b) other charters.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: We have made considerable progress through legislation and the publication of the 27 follow-up charters referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. As he has said, we shall shortly publish a White Paper describing progress to date and our plans for future developments.
    Ms. Eagle: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that the patients charter is now regarded by most people as nothing short of a sick joke, given that waiting lists are rising again and cuts in expenditure on the health service mean that services are being denied and cut despite the glossy promises in what is now a sham and a pointless, useless waste of time?
    Mr. Jackson: I think that the hon. Lady is ill informed in speaking of cuts in spending on the national health service. Half the people who are given appointments in the NHS are seen within five weeks, the two-year maximum waiting list has been imposed since April and the 18-month waiting list will be reduced for hip, knee and cataract operations from April 1993. Substantial progress is being made in the health service under the citizens charter.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm my clear impression that the most valuable feature of what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has published to date has been that management at all levels have come together to discuss and work out ways in which their services can be made much more responsive to the public and that, for example, recent publication of the charter by the Kent police has been very widely welcomed within Kent and is serving as a model for forces elsewhere?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend was able to visit the police in Kent very recently and see them at first hand. My hon. Friend is right to draw a connection between the charter and better management in public services. The charter is not simply a matter of pious aspirations, as the Opposition seem to think. It is rooted in the whole development of thinking
    606
    about how to organise great organisations such as the public sector. What we are introducing across the board is management by contract. Management by contract implies management by standards, and management by standards expresses and underpins what has been done through the citizens charter.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the Royal Cornwall hospitals trust in Cornwall was the latest to announce ward cuts and closures as a result of financial difficulties, will the Minister confirm weekend press reports that he and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are about to concede that the health charter and the rail charter failed to meet their targets?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is entirely misinformed. Our objective with the charters is that standards should be realistic, that they should be demanding and that they should be reviewed with a view to improving them and extending them to make them more demanding.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will meet members of the Bolton Forum, when he next visits the north-west, to discuss the workings of the citizens charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend knows, I am visiting Bolton tomorrow. Although a formal meeting with the Bolton Forum is not in my programme, I hope to meet individual members in the course of the day.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend find many opportunities to visit Bolton, not only to meet members of the Bolton Forum, which is proving to be an excellent example of successful partnership between the public and private sectors, but to visit the successful city challenge schemes and, I hope, have further opportunities to visit the theatre?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The latter item to which my hon. Friend referred depends on my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. On the former point, I am delighted to see the £37·5 million that is now potentially available to Bolton over the next five years for city challenge, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the part that he took in winning that money for his constituents.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish figures showing the year-on-year increase in the amount of central Government market testing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Details of our market testing plans for the period to 30 September 1993 will be published on Wednesday, but I am happy to state now that we expect well over £1 billion worth of services to be market tested by the end of September next year. This compares with an average of about £25 million in previous years.
    Mr. Deva: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the dramatic improvement in market testing that has occurred so far. Will he ensure that those improved efficiencies will be passed on to the consumer'?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm that the improved efficiencies and indeed any savings that there might be within Departments will be available to those Departments to plough back into the very services where efficiency gains are being made, for the benefit of those services and for those who use them.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in the past two or three days there has been a lot of market testing going on, and it has gone along the following lines: "Do you think that the British public should have to pay for the fire at Windsor castle?" The market testing returns are of the order of 90 per cent. against.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have a statement on that matter later.
    Mr. Skinner: Ninety per cent. of the British public are against paying for the fire at Windsor castle. The Queen should be made to pay for it. That is the market test this weekend. Instead of talking about all that consumer crap, the right hon. Gentleman should make sure that she pays for the fire.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the level of the hon. Gentleman's thoughts are about the same as the level of his language. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage got it much nearer right when he said that the hearts of people in this country have gone out to Her Majesty the Queen over that tragedy.

    Public Services
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he has adopted to increase the availability of information about the performance of the public services.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: The citizens charter calls on all public services to provide more and better information on their performance. Details of the improvements in public service performance will be set out in the White Paper to be published on Wednesday.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend confirm that from next year the parents charter will give further information to parents about the performance of the state schools to which they send their children? Will he and his colleagues continue to reject calls from the teachers' unions and the Opposition to maintain secrecy?
    Mr. Jackson: I can certainly give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The publication of schools charters and the information flowing from them are an important step forward in the charter movement. My hon. Friend asks about the publication of performance standards. I visited the Employment Service in the north-east last week and saw for myself the publication of citizens charter performance standards in Employment Service offices. A great deal of performance against those standards is now being published.
    Mr. William O'Brien: When the Minister obtains information about local services, will he take into consideration the fact that organisations are saying that, because of lack of resources, the indicators prove that there is a reduction in the service being provided for the public? Will the Minister take on board the information that points to a reduction in services, and the fact that resources for local services should be improved?
    Mr. Jackson: I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell me the specific stories afterwards. My understanding is that charter standards are leading to increases in services provided, but I shall consider any case that he might bring forward.

GATT
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the latest developments in the GATT Uruguay round of trade negotiations.
As many hon. Members will have heard, the European Commission and the United States Government announced on Friday that they had reached agreement on the remaining issues separating them in the negotiations. Those included key points in the GATT agriculture agreement, and the separate but related trade dispute over Community support for oilseeds production.
That is excellent news. It opens the way to a full GATT agreement between all 108 parties to the Uruguay round. Most immediately, it removes the threat of an imminent trade war with the United States over oilseeds.
I should like to congratulate the two Commissioners directly involved, Mr. MacSharry and Mr. Andriessen, as well as the United States negotiators—Mr. Madigan, the Agriculture Secretary and Mrs. Hills, the United States Trade Representative. I should also pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have done so much to work for the agreement.
The main features of the agreement were, on agriculture, the cutting of quantities of subsidised exports by 21 per cent. and on oilseeds, a limit on the area under cultivation. We have still to see all the details, but it would appear that a GATT agriculture agreement on those lines will be broadly consistent with the reforms of the common agricultural policy regimes agreed by the Community last summer. The Commission will be preparing a report on compatibility with CAP reform.
That is in any case just one of the whole package of Uruguay round agreements. The results should be judged on the balance between all the elements. The Council of Ministers will take a final decision on whether to accept the deal when all the elements are in place.
Talks will be restarting in Geneva this week so that the other 95 participants in the Uruguay round can consider what has been agreed. I believe that it is possible to complete the negotiations this year and we will be urging all parties to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. Apart from agreeing the necessary changes to the agriculture text tabled by the GATT director-general, Mr. Dunkel, at the end of last year, there remains a great deal of work on other aspects of the Uruguay round negotiations.
Negotiations on liberalisation of trade in services and tariff reductions have to be completed. Much work had already been done on this and was waiting for a final resolution on agriculture. Final agreement is needed on the establishment of a multilateral trade organisation and a single dispute settlement system covering all the GATT agreements. Legal texts must be finalised for all the agreements—not only agriculture, services and tariffs, but intellectual property and investment, textiles, antidumping, subsidies and a whole range of other GATT rules and procedures. This is a formidable agenda much remains to be done.
Completion of the negotiations this year would meet the target set by the Munich G7 economic summit, and by the Birmingham European Council. It would enable texts
610
to be ready for presentation to the United States Congress before the 2 March deadline under their "fast track" approval procedure.
Let me remind the House what that will mean. It will mean perhaps $200 billion extra yearly output for the world by the end of this decade. It will mean improved opportunities for our exporters. It will mean that we are able to take advantage of increased trade in services. It will mean that our inventors and artists have a better protection for their intellectual property—it has been estimated that the United Kingdom record industry alone loses £1 billion a year through piracy. For developing countries it will mean western markets being more open to their agricultural and textiles products. The gains to them from increased trade could exceed the total western aid budget.
In short, this is a good deal—for the United Kingdom, for the European Community, for the United States, for the developing countries, and for the world. With determination and good will on all sides, I believe that such an agreement can be reached by the end of the year. I hope, therefore, that the whole House will join me in welcoming the achievement of the Community and the United States.
Mr. Robin Cook: All parts of the House will join the President of the Board of Trade in congratulating the negotiators to the GATT treaty, particularly Ray MacSharry, who might well have felt that it was not his job to return to those negotiations. However, he has helped to break out of a difficult stalemate to achieve an honourable agreement.
The whole House will also share the right hon. Gentleman's relief that the world is not to be plunged into a trade war in which everyone would have lost. Does he agree that it is important that other countries do not draw the conclusion from the American experience that all that is necessary to secure concessions is to threaten to start a trade war? Will he therefore confirm that the agreement that has now been reached involves concessions on the United States side, concessions which the United States negotiator initially rejected?
I endorse what the President of the Board of Trade said about the boost that the agreement will provide to the poorest countries, which are most in need of greater access to the wealthier markets of the west and which had most to lose if talks had broken down between the two main trading blocks of the west. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that all 100 member countries that are parties to the GATT talks stand to gain from that agreement.
Some in the House may be surprised that the right hon. Gentleman made a statement without reference to the well-known objections taken by France to the agreement that has been reached. Will he therefore take this opportunity to confirm that it is also true that France will be a net beneficiary of a GATT agreement? Will he also take this opportunity to urge the Government of France to accept the GATT talks and the GATT agreement in the round and not to judge it by the single issue of farm subsidies, because French industry stands to gain more than French farmers will lose?
May I press the President of the Board of Trade on the problems that are still outstanding? Agreements are still to be concluded on financial services, telecommunications and maritime services—the right hon. Gentleman referred

611
to some of those difficulties in his statements. How confident is he that those difficulties will be overcome before the March deadline, when the fast-track mandate runs out for the United States Congress? Has he had any indication that the President-elect would be interested in rolling forward that fast-track mandate for a further year, were that to prove necessary?
The President of the Board of Trade will understand that a statement on trade and tariffs today will be judged by the House against the background of the trade figures on which he has not volunteered a statement today. Those figures show another increase in the visible trade gap, which is now running at an annualised rate of £14,000 million with the other countries that are party to GATT, or £1 million for the time it will take the House to discuss the statement. Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that, for the first time in a recession, Britain is seeing imports rise faster than exports? Does he accept that the single most important change in our pattern of trade with the world during the many years of the GATT talks is that, until the early 1980s, Britain never had a deficit in trade in manufactured goods, but, since then, it has never had a surplus in its trade in manufactured goods?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that the stimulus that GATT will provide to world trade, if it is successful, makes it all the more urgent that the Government start to stimulate investment in new plant to provide training and skills and offer the strategy for industry that is now essential to rebuild the manufacturing capacity that they have destroyed and which we need to compete in world trade?
Mr. Heseltine: It is sad that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who began by so warmly welcoming the important and positive aspects of my statement, characteristically sought to cloud the good news by trying to divert attention away from it. That is characteristic of the Opposition's mean-minded approach.
May I display my characteristic generosity and concentrate on the early parts of the hon. Gentleman's response. The position is not quite as simple as he suggested by implying that one needs only to start a trade war to achieve results. Two issues were involved and were running concurrently. One was the dispute between the Community and the United States over oilseeds, which had been the subject of continuing discussion in which the Americans believed that they had used all the appropriate means open to them to get redress. GATT panels found on their side twice, yet no progress had been made. In the end, GATT persuaded the Americans to take the steps that they took—dangerous steps, without a shadow of a doubt.
But that matter was coincidental with the negotiations proceeding towards a settlement of the areas outstanding in the present Uruguay round. Inevitably, the two matters became interrelated, and it is to the credit of those who negotiated a settlement that they took that extremely difficult issue and resolved both the matters satisfactorily.
The second issue about which the hon. Gentleman asked was the position of France. I have never tried to pretend—nobody could—that the French Government do not have problems with their agricultural interests. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that France relies on its agricultural economy perhaps only to the extent of 5 per cent. Therefore, for the overwhelming
612
majority of French commercial and industrial interests, a successful conclusion of the GATT round is as much in the interests of France as the rest of the world.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I was confident that, under the renewed GATT procedures, we shall be able to make progress. I can only hope that that is so, and I wish those responsible every good fortune. Everybody knows that the rest of the world has had to stand apart while the disputes between America and the Community have been resolved. They are now back in the picture and will have their own views and self-interests. But they will appreciate, as did the hon. Gentleman, that the fast-track opportunity in the United States expires on 2 March and that it is, therefore, to everybody's interest to get within that arrangement—not to consider extending it, as the hon. Gentleman said, but to take advantage of the existing window that is now open in the American procedures.
No one should understate the dramatic opportunity for the whole world, particularly the less-developed world, of a successful outcome of the sixth Uruguay round.
Mr. Michael Lord: Although I welcome the agreement that has been reached, is it not true that what may be good news for world trade in the long term may prove to be rather bad news for farmers in the short term? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our farmers will not be significantly worse off under the terms of this agreement than they would have been under the original CAP reform package? So that the House may decide exactly what is going on, can the financial details be laid before us as soon as possible?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who displays a rightful concern for agricultural interests in this country. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food believes that the present agreement between the United States and the European Community is compatible with the CAP reform announced earlier this year. That does not mean that there are no difficulties for farmers within the CAP reform, but they are not exacerbated by the GATT negotiations.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that there is considerable relief among Liberal Democrat Members that a trade war has been averted and that progress is being made towards the eventual settlement of the GATT round? However, may I take up the points made by the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord)? The settlement and the CAP reforms will further squeeze farm incomes throughout the Community, and rural communities need measures to help compensate for that. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that attention will be given to that? Does he also accept that the final shake-out of the GATT round will have a far-reaching effect on many industries and requires a Community-wide strategy to ensure that we can take full advantage of it, defeat unemployment and have a regional policy? When does he think that our balance of payments deficit will be turned into a surplus?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member asks me to go further than I went in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord). We all realise the pressures, applied on the agricultural industry as a result of the CAP reform, but it is the view of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the agreements reached last Friday are compatible with the

613
CAP reforms announced earlier. The CAP reforms contain measures, particularly agri-environmental measures, designed to help the sort of people to whom the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred.
The wider issue of the balance of trade is a matter of concern. The position in terms of the manufacturing industry has been deteriorating for most of the post-war period. It is a profoundly important issue, but not one to be discussed in this context.
Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide feeling of relief at the successful conclusion of the talks? They have, after all, taken six years, as they started under the previous British presidency. Does not my right hon. Friend's statement show how important it is to set up a new disputes machinery so that the damaging row between the Americans and the Community will not occur again? How does my right hon. Friend see the way forward for negotiations within the Community? Can matters be settled by qualified majority, or does the Luxembourg compromise still exist? I thought that it had been abolished in 1983.
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend shows a perceptive understanding of many of the problems involved. Everyone feels a sense of frustration that it has been six years since the talks got under way. People have a clear understanding of the scale of the potential opportunity available. By our failure to reach agreement, we have prevented such success coming at the pace that we would like.
My right hon. Friend was perfectly right to say that one of the issues that had frustrated progress was the inadequacy of the disputes machinery. It is to be welcomed that, within the text proposed by the director-general of GATT, an improved disputes machinery is there to be negotiated. It is important to stress that, within the agreement between the United States and the Community, a peace clause has been injected so that both sides know that when the agreement has been reached there is no recourse to further reopening of the issues in the context of the agreement. Such a reopening of the issues could destabilise the agreement.
As for qualified majority voting, I believe that the position is that the Commission, which is authorised to negotiate on behalf of the Community, is now empowered to move back into the GATT talks in Geneva and negotiate there as the Community's representative. When and if a satisfactory outcome to a GATT round is achieved, it will be for the Community at large—the Council of Ministers—to determine whether that agreement, taken in the round, is acceptable. That decision is taken by the Council of Ministers by qualified majority voting, and it is to be greatly questioned whether the Luxembourg compromise is relevant in such circumstances.
Mr. Alfred Morris: It is well appreciated in Canberra and Wellington that Ministers here have kept in close touch with Australia and New Zealand about the negotiations. As for the multinational trade agreement that is still to be concluded, may we be assured that there will be continuing close
614
contact with Australia and New Zealand, and all member countries of the Cairns group, as with Commonwealth countries generally?
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue—what he has said is accurate. During our presidency of the Community—and as a nation which sees wider world trade as economically beneficial to the world community—we have tried to keep in touch with those people not directly immersed in the dispute across the Atlantic. I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said—we have kept closely in touch with the Cairns group of Ministers. I can go further and say that now that the GATT process has returned to Geneva, we shall continue to keep in touch across the world and use our good offices to bring about a speedy resolution of outstanding matters. Such a policy will embrace a continuing relationship with the Cairns Ministers and a wider Commonwealth connection.
Sir Giles Shaw: I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend and his team for the success that has been achieved to date. I wish, however, to emphasise what lies ahead. With responsibility for access to, and reduced tariffs in, the world market, there comes a responsibility for true and fair prices. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the textile industry in particular is looking to the conclusion of anti-dumping arrangements that are more meaningful than those which emerged from the previous GATT round?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important issue. The position of the textile industry is especially important in the GATT round, because the multi-fibre arrangement is designed to be phased out and replaced as GATT arrangements come in place. The position of the United Kingdom is clear: we are determined to ensure as best we can, with all the energies that we possess, the interests of the United Kingdom textile industry. The House will be glad to know that in the draft GATT agreement there are provisions for a transitional period of 10 years. The agreement offers better protection, for example, for intellectual property rights, improved GATT rules against unfair or disruptive trade and the prospects of greater access to other markets. I have in mind especially the high tariffs on textiles that are maintained by the United States and certain developing countries, which would be beneficially affected downwards.
Mr. Bryan Davies: I share the relief that a damaging trade war with the United States has been averted and that the MFA will continue, to the benefit of my constituents. Will the President of the Board of Trade accept that he should not be so evasive about the other significant trade factor, which is the sign that Britain is not paying its way? Yet again, disastrous balance of payments figures have been recorded. Unless policies that bear on the engineering industry and manufacturing industry generally are changed, the opportunities demonstrated by the GATT round will not be available to the United Kingdom in full measure.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must not have been present in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his autumn statement, as a result of which we saw interest rates coming down, new tax allowances to encourage investment and a range

615
of announcements to stimulate capital expenditure, plus a determined attack upon inflationary wage claims that would otherwise undermine Britain's competitiveness.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I warmly welcome the agreement and extend congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, in his capacity of President of the European Council of Ministers, is reputed to have played an important and valuable role. But may I put it to my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he is fully aware of this—that not only French farmers are concerned about the agreement? Farmers in my constituency—and, I am sure, throughout the country—are extremely worried. Does he understand that it would not be acceptable for set-aside to be raised above 15 per cent? Farmers in my constituency will look to the Government for special help to cushion the effect of all this.
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to explore the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I understand that Commissioner Ray MacSharry has said specifically that there is no likelihood of set-aside being increased above 15 per cent.
As for my hon. Friend's tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that no one did more in a benign way to influence the outcome of the agreement last Friday. There is not the slightest doubt that his relentless pursuit of sanity and reason helped to achieve the agreement that has been warmly welcomed this afternoon.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I regard "benign way" as a studied insult to the Prime Minister. Is the Secretary of State aware that, contrary to all the opinion that has been expressed up till now about GATT being wonderful and beautiful, the view still prevails among socialists—those who believe in intervention in the internal market of the economy and the external market—that GATT will not ensure full employment, a regional policy, a position in which our coal industry does not have to compete with slave labour economies in Colombia and South Africa and a situation in which farmers and farm workers in Britain do not have to compete with the sunshine states of Florida and California?
Some of us believe that there is no such thing as a level playing field in world economics. The truth is that, while people are clamouring for GATT, the net result will he that third-world economies will suffer, as will people in this country because the dole queues will increase.
Mr. Heseltine: We have just heard the voice of the international brotherhood of man. The hon. Gentleman tells us of the views that still prevail among socialists. The question for this House is whether any socialists still prevail.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I add my welcome for, and relief about, the agreement to the welcome already expressed by other hon. Members? I am glad that my right hon. Friend has told us when he expects a general agreement to be concluded. Can he say whether that final agreement will be discussed in the EC under the British presidency or the future Danish presidency and also whether the French could delay agreement until after their Assembly elections?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that we are working on that problem. We very much hope that the agreement will be concluded under the British presidency, but it must be clearly understood that it is not now within the gift of the EC to dictate the pace at which the GATT round makes progress.
Having answered the first half of my hon. Friend's question in that way, it follows that the answer to the second half is that, just as we are not in a position to bring forward the ultimate conclusion, neither are we in a position to disrupt progress. All that is now within the GATT negotiating machinery.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the fact that a damaging trade war has been averted. The President said that the agreement was broadly consistent with the agreement on reform of the common agricultural policy. Is he aware that, even if it is only minutely inconsistent with that agreement, that could mean the end for tens of thousands of Welsh hill farmers? I urge him to make available all the details as soon as possible, because morale in the industry is very low.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that the full details of last Friday's agreement have not yet been made available to us, but that the broad declaration has made it clear that the terms are consistent with the CAP reforms. The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in agriculture, especially hill farming. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about that category and, indeed, about all categories of agriculture. He will carefully study how the new agreement will affect hill farmers.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Has it not been demonstrated in the House this afternoon that we are all in favour of free trade until it affects our particular interest or industry—whether it is coal, hill farming in Wales, farming, textiles or manufacturing industry that is protected in this country? In view of the prejudice that has been shown in the House, will there be any opportunity for third-world countries truly to take advantage of the GATT agreement?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important point. The answer to his question is yes, there will be every opportunity for third-world countries. Although in the negotiations leading to a successful GATT round every country is bound to argue for its national self-interest, in the end all countries have to consider the agreement in the round to judge whether they gain more than they lose. Some industries or some sectors of industries in individual countries may not think of themselves as natural winners, but the overall national interest and the overall trading interests of the world gain. It will not be possible for those countries that are adversely affected in some small way to use that as an excuse for denying the third world the opportunities that are built into a successful GATT round.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: How can a reduction in rapeseed and cereal exports be secured without increasing set-aside above 15 per cent?
Mr. Heseltine: I have already explained that the GATT agreements are compatible, as we are advised, with the common agricultural policy reforms. Obviously, the

617
compatibility of them will be explored when the full details of the settlement are available. Of course, a certain set-aside provision is already anticipated in the CAP reforms.
Mr. Mark Robinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, like me, will welcome the day when the Opposition are prepared to support and welcome a settlement such as the GATT agreement, which has been asked for and demanded by British farmers consistently. The settlement is welcomed in Somerset.
Will my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do all in their power to persuade the French Government to place the broader international interest above the interest of a few French farmers?
Mr. Heseltine: I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been a continued dialogue between Ministers in Her Majesty's Government and Ministers in the French Government. That dialogue will continue.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The President of the Board of Trade has said that he believes and hopes that the GATT agreement will be concluded by the end of the year in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the G7 countries. Although Opposition Members would welcome a conclusion if it were possible, we accept that there are so many ramifications, difficulties and negotiations that we may be looking at the deadline of 2 March. Of course, that brings in the confluence with the elections in France.
In his statement, the President of the Board of Trade said that the agreements reached in America were "broadly" in line with the CAP reforms in May. The matter is of great importance to the French, and it will have to be dealt with, beyond simply reaching a broadly consistent agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember our last debate on the multi-fibre arrangement when the hon. Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) raised the issue. As he is aware,
618
the multi-fibre arrangement ends on 31 December. Although we welcome his statement that there may be 10 years protection for our textile industry as a consequence of the new GATT arrangements, can he give an undertaking that, between now and 31 December, the multi-fibre arrangement will be extended?
Mr. Heseltine: We anticipate that the multi-fibre arrangement will, in some way, be the subject of a carry-over arrangement until the new GATT arrangement is in place. At present, the Community is negotiating with suppliers of textiles to the Community to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are in place in any interregnum. For example, agreement has been reached with Hong Kong.
The hon. Member asked about the use of the word "broadly". One must use that word because, for example, the CAP reforms have not yet embraced wine or sugar. There is not a finalised agreement that can be set alongside the Friday arrangement, so we must use words that show that there are still matters of uncertainty but that within the broad view there will still be compatibility.
I fully understand the position of the French Government. They entered into a negotiation which gave authority to the Commission to negotiate on a certain basis. The Commission must satisfy all members of the Community that it has discharged that authority within the remits that it was given. It believes that it has done so. The Commission must continue any further discussions on the matter.
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there are many ramifications ahead. That is certainly the case, but the Commission must now make progress. It is not for individual countries within the Community to frustrate that position. The ability of individual countries in the Community to make a judgment will depend on a successful outcome of the entire GATT round, when it will be put to the Council of Ministers for qualified majority approval.
Dr. Gavin Strang: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There is another statement and, as the House knows, I take points of order after all the statements have been completed.

Windsor Castle (Fire)
4.4 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House about the tragic fire at Windsor castle.
Shortly before midday on Friday, a fire started in or near the private chapel close to the state apartments. It took hold rapidly. The county fire service arrived within eight minutes and built up to 39 fire appliances and more than 200 firefighters. By late afternoon, the fire had been contained in the north-east corner of the castle. The fire services continued fighting the fire throughout Friday night, and by Saturday morning it had been largely extinguished.
The fire severely damaged several of the state rooms in the north-east corner of the castle, including St. George's hall and the grand reception room. An extremely effective pre-planned salvage operation was carried out to remove pictures, furnishings, carpets and other valuables from threatened rooms.
I visited the castle on Saturday and saw the extent of the damage. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in saying to Her Majesty that we share with her the sadness of the devastation of what is, at one and the same time, her home, a major state building, and a unique asset and attraction of our national heritage.
I would like to pay tribute to the county fire services, to the Windsor castle auxiliary fire service, and to all those who so quickly and efficiently helped to salvage so much from the burning buildings. In very difficult and dangerous circumstances they performed with skill, courage and dedication. There was no loss of life and only limited damage to works of art—one picture, one sideboard, and an antique carpet appear to have been lost. The fire was contained to one area, and the contingency planning was put into effect most successfully.
Investigations into the cause of the fire started almost immediately, and I will receive a complete report in due course. Scaffolding is being erected to stabilise the structure, and temporary roofing will be provided. Surveys will then be carried out to identify what action is needed to restore the buildings, and a full report is expected within a month. Meanwhile, the rubble will be carefully sifted by experts from English Heritage and elsewhere, working in close co-operation with the royal household, to provide essential information for authentic restoration work. It will then be possible to estimate the scale and cost of the restoration work, and to plan for it. Those of the state apartments that have not been damaged will be open to the public as soon as feasible.
Windsor castle is the property of the state, and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that resources are provided to maintain it in a manner commensurate with its status, and its role on occasions of state. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that resources will be provided to restore that most precious and well loved part of our national heritage.
Once preliminary examinations of the circumstances of the fire have been completed and considered, I shall want to decide in consultation with the royal household that further investigations are necessary.
620
Windsor castle is a world famous symbol of this country. I believe that it is our duty to ensure that the damage is repaired as soon as possible.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Opposition share the profound sense of loss at the destruction of such a valuable part of our national heritage in the Windsor castle fire. However, we regret the failure of the Minister to set up a public inquiry into the causes of the fire and the lessons to be learned. We echo the tributes to the impressive work undertaken by the firefighters of the Berkshire fire service and others involved in the rescue operation. They displayed great courage in extremely difficult circumstances. All of us owe a great debt of gratitude to them. However, Opposition Members have several serious concerns about the safety arrangements and fire precautions at Windsor. Those questions were not fully dealt with by the Minister.
Sir John Garlick's report following the fire at Hampton court recommended more effective fire drills held jointly between the local fire brigade and Hampton court palace staff. Was that recommendation implemented in the case of Windsor castle? How many fire drills have there been involving castle staff and the Berkshire fire service, and what were the dates of those drills? If the Secretary of State does not have that information today, will he let me have it tomorrow? On the same basis, can the House be informed whether British standard 5839—the code of practice for the installation and servicing of fire-related equipment, including the use of a logbook—was implemented at Windsor castle during the period before the fire?
Why did the Property Services Agency, as part of its preparation for privatisation, transfer responsibility for fire protection at royal buildings to the royal household two years ago? Does the Secretary of State agree that if, as he said, they are buildings of the nation and part of the nation's heritage, the nation should be responsible for fire protection?
Can the Secretary of State say why the Government closed the Crown Suppliers, which was responsible for providing expert advice on fire protection? Can he inform the House who is left within the Government to provide expert advice to Government Departments and to the royal family on anti-inflammable materials? Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether it is true that the royal household refused English Heritage access to survey parts of the castle that have been rewired and structurally altered in the past few years?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that Windsor castle's 12 part-time firemen were made redundant under a cost-cutting exercise five years ago? Does he agree that the fire could have been dealt with much more effectively in the crucial first few minutes of the blaze if that force had still been in place? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on suggestions that there was considerable ambiguity about the respective roles of the royal household, the PSA, the internal fire prevention services and the Berkshire fire brigade—an ambiguity which delayed the firefighting exercise?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to documents leaked to The Sunday Times, the castle was considering abandoning its computerised alarm system because it was "very labour-intensive"? Is it not the case

621
that, as the consequences of cost cutting, high-pressure water-jet pumps were replaced by inferior pumps less capable of fighting a major blaze?
Can the right hon. Gentleman give more details of the safety conditions imposed on the private contractors involved in rewiring the area around Windsor chapel? Were contractors undertaking electrical work in that part of the building where the fire started? English Heritage, the National Trust and most national museums have banned hot work except with stringent safeguards. Can the Secretary of State say whether such safeguards were in force at Windsor?
Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will include within the remit of any inquiry clarification of what is public and what is private property on the Windsor estate—what is ours, what is theirs, and whether there are any grey areas?
The Garlick report on the Hampton court fire concluded:
"Perhaps the most important lesson of the Hampton Court Palace fire … is that the preservation of our national heritage requires that the best material contribution from science and technology is matched by a corresponding commitment to securing the best organisation and use of human resources."
The whole country is asking whether we learned those lessons.
Several of my hon. Friends as well as members of the public raised the question of who should pay. The right hon. Gentleman has already pledged this afternoon that the total cost will be paid out of the public purse. While there is a great deal of public sympathy for the monarch, there is also legitimate public concern that the total cost of repair should not be paid exclusively by the taxpayer. Has the right hon. Gentleman ruled out a contribution from the royal family, and would he welcome such a contribution if it were offered?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady has asked me a series of questions. I am grateful for the sympathy that she expressed at the outset.
The hon. Lady asked about the inquiry. I did say that, as soon as we had received the preliminary report, I would discuss with the royal household whether there were further matters that we should investigate. She also asked about fire service drills. If that is a matter of particular importance to her, I shall let her know the dates of drills; but they occur on a regular basis. One of the most recent rehearsals was carried out in the Brunswick tower, which was affected by the fire.
Although the part of the castle that was affected by the fire is not subject to fire regulations, it is the royal household's policy to comply with them. It is, however, in the nature of such ancient buildings that it is not possible to carry out all the regulations that are laid down for modern buildings without destroying some of the historic fabric. I understand that the regulations are being complied with in the castle as far as that is feasible; indeed, fire precaution measures exceed the guidance set out in them.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions relating to the part-time fire service. The changes made in 1991 have brought about a positive improvement in part-time arrangements. The complications were reduced when a central Government Department and the Property
622
Services Agency, as well as the royal household, became involved. It is, I think, universally agreed that the previous arrangements were unsatisfactory, and that the present ones are much better.
The hon. Lady asked about the denial of access to English Heritage. The rewiring which occasioned the issue did not involve significant renovation work, and English Heritage experts were not needed; they have, however, been fully involved in renovation of the round tower. The hon. Lady also asked about cuts. The castle-based fire service has increased its full-time staff from five to six. She mentioned 12 part-timers: I acknowledge that that figure has fallen to nine, but if volunteer part-timers came forward, they would willingly be accepted.
It was suggested that there had been delay owing to ambiguity. On Saturday, I spent a long time with the relevant officer in the Berkshire fire service. He was clear that the arrangements—for which there had been preparation—had worked extremely well. The castle fire service was used for its specific purposes, providing guidance and, in particular, identifying the order in which objects should be removed.
The hon. Lady asked where the distinction lay between public and private property. Responsibility for the fabric of the castle rests with the Government, as it has done since 1831, before the introduction of the great Reform Bill. The contents of the castle constitute a royal collection, and responsibility for them therefore rests with the Queen. Let me stress to the hon. Lady, in terms of the question that she asked—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: She asked about hot-work certificates.
Mr. Brooke: I shall come back to that.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about public and private property. The state apartments, where the fire occurred, were not Her Majesty's private apartments, and were, therefore, essentially public. Not all of them are open to the public all the time, but they are state rooms in which state functions occur.
As for the question that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) just prompted me about, when we have received the report on the origins of the fire, we shall he able to go into the practical details.
The hon. Member for Clwyd finally asked me whether the lessons of Sir John Garlick's report had been learned. A substantial series of works were put in hand, including those at Windsor castle, as a result of his recommendations. In the context of what the hon. Lady said about who should pay, I have already referred to the Government's responsibility, which goes back over 160 years, for the fabric of the castle. The responsibility for that lies clearly and firmly with the Government.
Mr. Michael Trend: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his full statement, will he bear in mind the fact that my constituents in the royal borough are particularly distressed by the damage caused by fire to the castle? Does he accept that, while the castle is a priceless part of Britain's national heritage, it is to my constituents, and particularly to the good townspeople of Windsor, a familiar friend that they hold in great affection? It is a central part of their lives and their livelihood. I speak not only for myself but also for my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay),

623
with whom I share parliamentary representation of the roayl borough. He sits on the Treasury Bench and, as the House understands, cannot speak at this time.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that various of the royal borough's and county's services, led by the fire service combined with the expertise of the auxiliary service in the castle, were of the highest standard during the terrible events of last weekend?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, just as I was grateful for his presence in the castle on Saturday when we looked at the damage. Of course I link with any remarks those of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East. My hon. Friend expresses a universal view when he praises the quality and effectiveness of the work done and the co-operation achieved in fighting this disaster.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, join in the sympathy that has been extended to Her Majesty and in the admiration that has been expressed to the firemen? May I also express our relief that the chairman of English Heritage, Mr. Jocelyn Stevens, has not been able so far to deprive us of the expertise that will enable the rubble to be investigated by English Heritage experts?
The question of the public interest in Windsor castle and all the royal residences goes beyond the fabric of the building, which has been protected by the 1831 Act, to its contents—the works of art and the decorations. The accident of the Queen choosing to reside in a certain part of the castle cannot determine how best those objects have to be protected. A proper and full inventory is needed of buildings that are publicly protected, and also of their contents, so that the public can be assured that they are being properly protected.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, both of sympathy and of admiration. In the context of what he said about English Heritage, the people who gave advice on the restoration of Hampton Court palace, as well as experts from other parts of the public services and elsewhere, are not the precise people with whom his question was connected in the context of English Heritage's plans. As to the hon. Gentleman's question about an inventory, I understand that what is known as photogammetry has been carried out in all the rooms concerned, and that there is therefore a substantial record against which restoration work can be conducted.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on the Benches behind him warmly endorse what he has said, in particular his expression of sympathy to the Queen? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, when £60 million is divided among a population of 57 million, it come to about £1 a head, or, spread over 10 years, to about lop a head per year; and that I know of no one who would resent paying such a sum to restore a vital part of Britain's heritage that draws an immense number of foreign visitors, which benefits Britain as a whole? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that Hampton Court palace staff rushed to the scene and helped to rescue the paintings?
Mr. Brooke: I am quite certain that the views of sympathy that my hon. Friend expressed are shared throughout the House. He expressed a notional cost fugure, and although I have seen figures quoted in the
624
press, I cannot lend any credence to them, as such preparatory planning has not been done. I am certain that those who came from Hampton Court palace, like everyone else involved, enjoy the gratitude of the nation for the manner in which the works of art were so successfully rescued from the castle.
Mr. Derek Enright: Since the Secretary of State is quite rightly paying considerable resources to Windsor castle following an accident for which I do not blame the Government, does he agree that, where we lose our heritage as a direct result of the Government's action, the Government equally should pay money? I think in particular of Frickley Colliery Athletic football club and Grimethorpe colliery band, both of which will cease to exist, and which, as the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) said, are crucial to the communities that they represent.
Mr. Brooke: I do not know precisely where responsibility lies—[Interruption.] No, people should not become excited. I genuinely recognise the significance of what the hon. Gentleman said, and it is one of the considerations that I have been putting my mind to in the context of potential closures.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who have been deeply distressed by the fire over the weekend have been almost as distressed by some of the mean-spirited comments that have been made following it? Will he emphasise that we are dealing with an official residence where people are entertained in the name of this country by our head of state, who represents much better value than most presidents, and that it is just as legitimate to spend money on this as it would be if a misfortune happened at Chequers, whoever was the occupant at the time?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the treasures of the royal collection cannot be sold and are available to the public, who see them in their thousands, if not millions, every year? Does he further agree that we can be encouraged not only by the wonderful efforts of the firefighters in rescuing so many treasures but by the fact that we know from Hampton Court that we have brilliant British craftsmen who will be able to restore the building to its former glory?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's admirable common sense, and I hope that his comments will inform the argument about the issue, because he is quite right about the essence of the castle and its contents. I entirely share the admiration that he expressed about our craftsmen.
Mr. William Ross: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish to be associated with the Secretary of State's expression of sympathy to the sovereign, but who is ultimately responsible for the decision not to insure such buildings, and did the premium saved cover the cost of the damage?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's initial expression of sympathy. It is a long-established principle of Governments, of all parties and colours, that we do not insure such buildings, and I should be surprised if the Treasury had not done a calculation showing that it is a more economical way of proceeding.
Mr. Richard Tracey: This fire was undoubtedly a tragedy and a disaster for the nation. My right hon. Friend will recall that, following the similarly awful fire at Hampton Court, Ministers at the Department of the Environment, then responsible for that building, called for an extensive report on the precautions that should be taken for the future. I refer to the report by Sir John Garlick.
My right hon. Friend has said that the lessons of the Hampton Court fire and the report on it have been duly noted. Can he assure the House that the Government have provided the necessary financial means to carry out the lessons of the report?
Mr. Brooke: I should perhaps have clarified earlier the fact that the lessons have been not only learned but acted on. My hon. Friend will recall from his time at the Department of the Environment the scale of the assistance given to Hampton Court palace. The programme mounted in Windsor and elsewhere has been on a larger scale still, some of it devoted to rewiring and related issues and some of it to fire precautions.
Mr. Bill Michie: I have not lost one second's sleep over this tragedy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] No lives were lost, and that is what is most important.
How can we suddenly find any amount of money—perhaps as much as £60 million—when in the same week most local authorities may be capped, when cardboard city still exists, when houses are falling apart and when people are being dispossessed? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify that?
Mr. Brooke: I mentioned earlier the cost involved. How this matter will be funded will depend partly on what is required. I do not expect the likely amount to be easily absorbable in the budget of my Department, but I shall discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary when I have had an estimate of the costs. Clearly, restoration in cases like this involves work spread over a number of years.
Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend confirmed that Windsor castle has been the responsibility of the Government since 1831. Will he also confirm that it has been open to the public throughout the 19th century and into this century, and that substantial overseas earnings are gained by its being open for tourism? Will he also confirm that Her Majesty is personally responsible for the maintenance of the royal collection, which has been greatly added to during the course of this reign, and that she will pay a large sum of money for the restoration of any damaged works in the collection?
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend's last point was entirely correct. As for the castle being open to the public, the range of media bids that I have received from other parts of the world is an indication of how much the rest of the world regards Windsor castle as a symbol of the nation.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: The Minister will recall making a statement to this House on 26 October regarding the redirection and concentration of budget resources for English Heritage. On that day, such redirection and concentration meant that 180 historic sites were deemed no longer within its remit. How is it that, in less than a month, the Government have found sufficient
626
funds to underwrite, apparently, the entire reconstruction work necessary after the great fire of Windsor? Where has the money come from? Would it have been spent on other aspects of English Heritage's remit if the fire had not occurred?
Mr. Brooke: On the date in question, I answered a private notice question: I did not make a statement. The hon. Lady's question about that is not wholly germane to today's statement. Since then, discussions have continued on the nature of the negotiations that will occur with bodies that will perhaps be prepared to take over such sites. I told the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) a moment ago that I still have to discuss funding with my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most sensible people will reject the mean and Pecksniffian attitude of the Opposition? If Windsor castle is not part of our national heritage, it is hard to know what is. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of people, apart from a few readers of The Sun like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), would gladly contribute to the restoration?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his robust Dickensian adjectives, and I share his view of the attitude of the country.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that English Heritage has proposed that royal immunity from planning legislation and public inspection should be removed from unoccupied palaces? Should not that arrangement be extended to occupied palaces? Is it not a fair share of responsibility that the Government should be responsible for repair to the fabric of the palace, as it is a heritage property, and that the Queen, as I understand it, will be responsible for restoration and treatment of any paintings or artefacts that need treatment?
Mr. Brooke: In answer to an earlier question, I made it clear that the royal household went beyond the guidance for fire regulations, even though the royal household is not specifically and directly responsible for them. Similar considerations apply in terms of other regulations. The hon. Gentleman's concluding question was entirely accurate.
Mr. John Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lessons and warnings to be absorbed from this episode go beyond royal palaces? Does he also agree that, at a time of recession, many national treasures, not necessarily in public ownership, are also at risk as a result of people cutting protection and care and maintenance? Does he accept that it is part of his responsibilities to ensure that no existing or potential national treasures are at risk from fire and similar irreparable damage?
Mr. Brooke: I must take issue with my hon. Friend's phrase about cutting care and maintenance, which implied that that had been the case in this instance. I assure my hon. Friend that that was not the case, but of course I share his view about the care that we should extend to national treasures.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it altogether wise for the Secretary of State to give undertakings to anyone until he has received the surveyor's report? Is it not accepted by structural engineers that ancient walls are destabilished when they are subjected to intense heat? Might not each Norman stone have to be dismantled and reconstructed, and would not £60 million be only a starting price for such work? Does the Secretary of State recollect that he attended the Adjournment debate on Pitchford hall, and that there are many other calls on English Heritage? It might turn out that some of our heritage, like Linlithgow palace, might have to remain in ruins and the cost of repair he absolutely disproportionate.
Mr. Brooke: I have been careful in all my answers to say that I have no precise indication at the moment of what the cost will be, and the determination of how we resolve that must await the figures. I acknowledge the possibility behind the hon. Gentleman's question, because he will know what had to be done with individual timbers at Hampton Court palace. On the other hand, I have to say—I agree that this is not an informed statement—after touring the castle on Saturday, that those from the fire service themselves said that, because of the building's quality, it was less likely that the walls would have to be dismantled than might be the case in more modern walls.
Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend is aware that the Isle of Wight enjoys a very special relationship with the royal family, not least because of Osborne house, which houses one of the foremost collections relating to our government of India. In due course, will my right hon. Friend find time to write to me to confirm that the fire precautions in the royal palace are adequate and up to date?
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is quite right to bring Osborne house to my attention. My Department has a particular responsibility for the house and I will gladly write to him. I am due to write to him on other matters in relation to the House in any event.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The most important fact is that no life was lost. Did the Secretary of State consult the Prime Minister, the royal family, their
628
advisers or anybody else before he decided to sign a blank cheque on our behalf and at our expense? If not, why not? Does he accept that the argument that the taxpayer should pay the bill rather lends support to the argument that the royal family should pay taxes just like everybody else?
Mr. Brooke: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I was asked at Windsor on Saturday a specific question: "Who will pay?" I enunciated the statutory responsibility of my Department for royal palaces. The hon. Gentleman's second question is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend take heart from the remarkable restoration of York minster? Will he ensure that we employ the nation's finest craftsmen and builders to put the building right? Will he ensure also that visitors can see the restoration as it is being undertaken?
Mr. Brooke: Of course I assure my hon. Friend of the quality of craftsmen whom we will use. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Under-Secretary of State, will he visiting York next week, and there will be a further opportunity for consultation.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Is not the Secretary of State trying to have it both ways, in saying that Windsor castle and the royal collection are part of the national heritage for which we should have national collective responsibility, even though ownership of the royal collection is not with the nation? Will he now enter into discussions with the royal household formally to transfer ownership of the royal collections into the public domain, so that all of them are open to the public and so that responsibility for them lies with the Museums and Galleries Commission and with himself?
Mr. Brooke: All those who have visited Windsor in the past have been impressed with the scale of that part of the royal collection which is available on show. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those parts of the royal collection which are on public show are moved around from time to time. I repeat that responsibility for the royal collection is not that of the Government but that of Her Majesty the Queen.

Points of Order
4.42 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: Further to the point of order that I sought to raise earlier, Madam Speaker. Can you help the House with respect to the refusal of the Minister of Agriculture to answer questions on the GATT agricultural agreement, bearing in mind that hundreds of thousands of food and agricultural jobs in this country are involved, as is the case in France and throughout the European Community?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that, as Speaker, I have no authority or responsibility to call a particular Minister to the Dispatch Box to answer those questions. If I had that responsibility, it might look as though I was selecting favourites.
Dr. Strang: I am grateful for your reply, Madam Speaker. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House will appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to question the Minister of Agriculture on important agricultural issues.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I rise to seek your guidance on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given notice to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) that I am about to raise this matter. When documents are quoted from by Ministers in this House it is the normal practice for that document to be available through the Library of the House. Can I draw your attentionto column 208 of the Official Report of the debate on Tuesday 17 November, when the hon. Member for Bradford, North said that he was quoting from a DTI document that had been published only overseas in overseas missions? When challenged as to the veracity of what he was quoting from, he said he would see me outside to give me a copy.
I have seen the hon. Gentleman on five occasions outside and written to him, and I still have not got the document. I wonder whether you could give some guidance as to how we could get this matter clarified.
Madam Speaker: Really, I do get some points of order. That really is a matter between the hon. Members concerned. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) has promised the hon. Gentleman a document.
630
Perhaps he will pursue it in order to obtain that document, but let me inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that, when a member of the Opposition or any Back Bencher makes reference to an official document, they do not have to lay it on the Table as a Minister has. Those are the rules of our House, and those are the rules of our proceedings.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Earlier today, a woman from Derbyshire rang me and said that she had had a fire on Friday and has to foot the bill herself. "Will you ask a Minister to stand up at the Dispatch Box," she asked, "and say that the Government are going to pay my bill as well as the Queen's?" I think that it is utterly wrong that the taxpayer—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Statutory Instruments, &c
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Statutory Instruments, &c
  That the draft Child Support Fees Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  COMPANIES (FEES)
  That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2876) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  COMPANIES (DISCLOSURE)
  That the draft Overseas Companies and Credit and Financial Institutions (Branch Disclosure) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Disclosure of Branches and Bank Accounts) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Opposition Day
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Arms Exports (Iraq)
    Madam Speaker: We now come to our debate on the conduct of Ministers on arms exports to Iraq. First, I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Secondly, I must tell the House that, because of the demand to speak in the debate, I have had to limit speeches between the hours of 7 and 9 to 10 minutes. Would hon. Members speaking outside that period exercise considerable voluntary restraint?
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
    That this House notes the evidence that up to July 1990 Her Majesty's Government was granting export licences for the supply to Iraq of defence equipment and munitions machines in clear breach of the Howe Guidelines of 1985 preventing the export of equipment that would significantly enhance military capability; is concerned that as a result of Her Majesty's Government's private change of policy British servicemen may have been exposed to fire from shells and rockets made in munitions factories equipped by Britain; regrets that no statement was made in Parliament or in public about the covert change in policy and that honourable Members were persistently misled by assurances that the Guidelines were being observed and that Britain had not helped arm Saddam; deplores the willingness of Her Majesty's Government to see citizens put on trial for exports at which Ministers had connived and to put their liberty at risk by attempting to prevent the disclosure of documents crucial to their defence; and believes that the conduct of Ministers in this matter has been inconsistent with the security of British troops, with open government, and with the just administration of legal process.
    Two years ago, British troops were assembling in the Gulf in order that in the new year they might drive Saddam out of Kuwait. Because the Royal Scots recruit in my region, I, like many hon. Members, had many constituents on that expedition. On the eve of the offensive, I met on a number of occasions the support group of the wives and mothers of those men. I remember those meetings clearly, because they were so heavily charged with the emotions of those families, who knew that their men were going to face one of the largest standing armies in the world, lavishly equipped with some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world.
    The first charge against the Government is that, in the two years before the Gulf war, they had helped to equip that war machine, and in two years provided hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of machine tools straight to the factories that made the weapons.
    Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Cook: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion, but I warn the House that many facts need to be put on the record, and I am sure that it would wish me to make progress with my speech.
    Mr. Hayes: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is wise that he should heed the old legal maxim that he who comes to equity should come with clean hands? Does he agree that he is presently serving time on the Opposition Benches for his economies with the actualité some time ago? [Interruption.] Why should the public believe him today, when they are of the view that the debate is nothing more than party political muck-raking? Leave the inquiry to Lord Justice Scott.
    Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friends have already concluded, I was in error in giving way, but, for the avoidance of doubt, because I had some difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, at no stage have I exported either arms or machine tools to any other foreign power.
    Conservative Members armed Saddam when they had ample evidence that he was a brutal tyrant who had already used his war machine to invade one neighbour, and, as that war with Iran would down, intensified his use of his war machine to terrify his own population.
    In 1988, when the guidelines on exports to Iraq were relaxed, Lord Howe, the then Foreign Secretary, was telling the world and the House that he had compelling evidence that gas had been used to kill 5,000 Kurds, mostly women and children, in the Halabja massacre. At the time, his Minister of State, now the Minister for open government, was particularly indignant at Question Time on Saddam's gas attacks on his population, but, a year later, he was agreeing to arm Saddam, provided that the Department of Trade and Industry answered any questions about it.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Cook: I will give way on this occasion to my hon. Friend, but again I make the same observation.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, shortly after the Halabja massacre in 1988, I was part of a delegation, which included Kurdish people, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? We met the said Minister, who expressed great disquiet about the gas attacks. However, when asked whether he would forthwith suspend all export credits, arms sales and trade with Iraq, he said that he would not, because trading interests came above considerations of our relationship with that tyrant.
    Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend reminds us, not only did the Foreign Office know that the regime was brutal: it knew that the ideology of Saddam's party revolved around his ambition to be the leader of a pan-Arab world. A stepping stone to that ambition, and at the heart of his war machine, was the drive to develop strategic weapons of mass destruction, to destabilise the middle east and to enable him to dominate it. In short, we helped to arm a man we knew to be brutal in his past conduct and megalomaniac in his aspirations.
    Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: No.
    I have read that people who have seen the documents have accused their authors of cynical conduct. Having read them, it was not Ministers' cynical decisions that impressed me, but their stark naivety in thinking that they could arm a brutal, unstable dictator and that he would not use those arms. Why did Ministers not ask in those

    633
    documents, "Why does that man want such sophisticated weapons in such vast quantities?" They knew what the machine tools were for—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, they knew.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Cook: I shall not give way.
    The machine tools were pre-programmed for use in munitions factories. The Iraqis sent specifications of what they wanted from the tools, which were programmed to make fuses and shell casings. There was no question of their having a dual purpose.
    Mr. Brandreth rose—
    Mr. Cook: I shall not give way—there is quite enough information to embarrass the Government in my speech.
    Nor can it be said that the machine tools were put in packing cases and sent to Iraq, where Saddam Hussein diverted them without anyone here knowing about it. Matrix Churchill sent workers to Iraq to set up the machine tools, to train their operators and to repair machines which did not work.
    During the past week, I have been approached by Matrix Churchill employees who knew that the company was making machines to make weapons. They cannot believe that anyone could be in any doubt about that. I have here a statement from an employee who was sent to repair a machine which had already been installed. He writes that, when he got there,
    "it was obviously a munitions factory. The main gates were guarded by at least 25 to 30 soldiers, all armed with automatic weapons. The surrounding areas were guarded by surface-to-air missile launchers, manned by a five-strong squad. Everywhere I looked there were large and small rockets, again with missile launchers. The ground was littered with spent shells."
    It was not a general engineering factory—not even Saddam put a missile launcher to guard a car factory—but a munitions factory, at the heart of his war machine, and Ministers knew that that was where the machine tools were going.
    I notice that the amendment refers to the "overriding consideration" of whether the equipment was lethal. The machine tools went into lethal weapon programmes. We know that at least two went into the Scud missile programme and that at least 30 have been found in Saddam Hussein's nuclear warhead factories. We know that many went to a factory that was intended to produce half a million shells per year. Those Scud missiles, nuclear warheads and Howitzer shells were lethal weapons.
    To be sure, Saddam Hussein did not intend to stuff the machine tools down the barrel of a supergun and use them to shell his enemies. He had a more lethal purpose: to produce the weapons he needed to wage war on his enemies and critics.
    The 1985 guidelines do not confine themselves to barring lethal equipment. They also bar any defence equipment which would significantly enhance military capability.
    Mr. Richard Page: The hon. Gentleman makes much of the fact that the machine tools were sent to make weaponry. Will he take it from someone who has operated most types of machine tool, that I know of no tool that' cannot be converted to a
    634
    military purpose? Can he tell me whether, in 1986 or 1987, he or the Labour party asked for all sales of machine tools to Iraq and Iran to be banned?
    Mr. Cook: Surely the hon. Gentleman's logic should make him question whether the machine tools should have been exported if they were all capable of being converted. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have been listening. I have been arguing that there was no need for Saddam Hussein to convert the tools, as they were preprogrammed and specified to produce fuses and shell cases. Before they were sent, the Matrix Churchill factory produced fuses and shells with them to find out whether they worked.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Cook: I shall not give way.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way. Is that correct?
    Mr. Cook: Yes.
    The 1985 guidelines did not merely ban lethal equipment but also any defence equipment which would significantly enhance military capability. Between 1988 and 1990, we did just that, and Ministers knew it, because in 1989 they received a report from the Ministry of Defence entitled: "British Assistance to the Emerging Iraqi Arms Industry", which listed in its appendix five pages of companies providing defence equipment to Iraq, and which came to the conclusion that assistance from British companies had helped to build
    "a very significant enhancement to the ability of Iraq to manufacture its own arms, thus to resume the war with Iran."
    The Ministry of Defence concluded that Ministers had broken the guideline not to enhance military capability.
    I notice that, in the amendment, the Government accuse us of "sensationalised" disclosures. If we have been sensational, it is only because we have published documents that show what Ministers did in meetings. I would not disagree with their choice of words. The picture that emerges from those documents is of Ministers arming one of the world's most brutal regimes and breaking their guidelines to do it. I agree with those on the Government Front Bench that that is sensational, and the Government knew it. We know that because, when the document was first produced in 1989, it was unclassified. In December 1990, it was marked "Restricted" in handwriting.
    Why? Would someone on the Government Front Bench like to tell us? It was not as if the document would have been of any value to our enemy in the Gulf war. Saddam knew what we had provided—he knew rather more than the British Parliament. The document was reclassified because the Government became embarrassed at the major role which Britain had played in rebuilding a war machine that British troops had to fight.
    There is another reason why Ministers might well be embarrassed. They not only helped to arm Saddam, but it looks as if Britain will have to pick up most of the bill. The Government agreed a new credit facility to Iraq in 1987, and the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury approved it —he is now the Prime Minister. Before he denies it, I accept that no one told him what he was approving. I am sure that no one showed him the letter of November 1987 from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which said:

    635
    "A notional 20 per cent. has been set aside for military business"—
    no nonsense there about dual use or general purpose machinery, only a clear credit facility for military business.
    Today, a written answer from the DTI confirms that £830 million is outstanding, on which the ECGD might be invited to honour guarantees, in respect of exports to Iraq. If we assume that a notional 20 per cent. of that sum was for military business, the British taxpayer stands to foot £170 million to pay for the equipment that we provided for Saddam's war machine. We did not just arm his forces —we paid for them into the bargain.
    I hope that no one today will claim that it was right to approve those exports on commercial grounds, because, judged as a commercial decision, it was a disaster for which the British taxpayer is still paying.
    Mr. Phillip Openheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman, and I shall do so in a moment.
    That £830 million is not that much less than the annual budget of the President of the Board of Trade when it is stripped of the swollen redundancy payments for miners. How much better would British industry benefit if that money had gone into supporting investment and training in British industry rather than in arms exports to a foreign power.
    Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. Will he answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page)? At any point in the middle or late 1980s, did Her Majesty's Opposition formally urge the Government to cease the export of machine tools to Iraq? Yes or no?
    Mr. Cook: The answer is that, for once, we were naive enough to trust what we had been told by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Gentleman intervening if he does not listen to the answer. We were told by Ministers that they would not allow the export of lethal equipment or any defence equipment that enhanced the military capability of the Iraqis or the Iranians. We now know from the documents, however, that Ministers knew perfectly well that it was not general purpose machine tools that were being exported, but defence equipment that would produce some of the most sophisticated weapons. That was a clear breach of what the House had been assured.
    Mr. Winston Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: No, I shall not.
    Let us consider the defence that the Government have put forward. The commercial defence—the fact that we needed the money—is at least better than the most contemptible defence of all, which is to dump all the blame on Alan Clark. The idea is that the rest of them did not know what he was up to: he sneaked in by the back door at night and took all the decisions after the rest of them had gone home. That will not wash, because Alan Clark left the DTI in July 1989, and the most controversial decisions were taken after that date.
    That defence will not wash because the Government are trying to blame the one man who told the truth. That is the
    636
    real crime of Alan Clark, according to the Government. It is not that he participated in secret meetings to export arms to Saddam, or that he misled Parliament, but that he let the cat out of the bag.
    If the President of the Board of Trade wants to point the finger at any colleague, let him point it at those who have yet to own up. Let him point it at Lord Trefgarne, who, in October 1989, said that the case for the guidelines had
    "weakened to the point of extinction"
    Let the finger point at Nicholas Ridley, who, in July 1990, wrote to the Prime Minister pressing for another "thorough review of policy". Let the finger point at the current Foreign Secretary who, on 19 July 1990, chaired a meeting of Ministers to review that policy, which resulted in a decision to release material for Saddam's Asa rocket project in the two weeks in which we now know he was massing his troops for the invasion of Kuwait.
    I noticed that, just before the weekend, journalists were briefed that Ministers had really wanted to tell Parliament about the outcome of the meeting on 19 July—it was just that the summer recess came too soon to tell us. I have my doubts about how sorry they are that they did not tell us. First, as Ministers are well aware, anyone who had made such a statement in the last week of July 1990 would have looked a proper ass the next week when Saddam walked into Kuwait.
    My second reason for doubt is even more compelling. If Ministers are really sorry that they did not tell us before the summer recess about what they had agreed at that meeting, they could always have told us after the summer recess. After the invasion of Kuwait, they were given many chances to do so by my hon. Friends, who wanted to know the truth about those exports. Not once in the answers that we were given was there even a glimpse that the guidelines had been bent.
    On 3 December 1990, the then Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—he is still a member of the President of the Board of Trade's team at the DTI—said in the House:
    "The guidelines … were set out … on 29 October 1985, and since then they have been scrupulously and carefully followed"—[Official Report, 3 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 29.]
    In August 1991 the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who is still a Cabinet colleague of the President of the Board of Trade, told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry:
    "Our examination of the records shows that the policy announced in Parliament in 1985 was adhered to both in the spirit and in the letter."
    Not a word there about the fact that, in December 1988, the letter of the guidelines was changed without any announcement in Parliament and that, by November 1989, the spirit of the guidelines had been extinguished.
    It is not surprising that we were not told. It is a repeated theme of the minutes and memoranda disclosed to the court that Parliament should not be told and that the public must not be allowed to know. As one official expressed it:
    "There seems to be considerable merit in keeping as quiet as possible about this politically sensitive issue."
    When Alan Clark proposed that the guidelines be relaxed, he added in his letter:
    "I would not propose an announcement of any decision."
    When one reads the documents, one becomes persuaded that the problem that Ministers perceived was

    637
    not that Saddam might use the machines to make weapons; what they were really worried about was that the public might find out what they had decided.
    Mr. Phil Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that Ministers were under pressure at that time from Opposition Members who were keen to maintain their constituents' jobs and constituency businesses? Is not he aware of the pressure brought to bear on Ministers by Opposition Members?
    Mr. Cook: No, I am not aware of any such pressure. If the hon. Gentleman has knowledge of any hon. Member who exerted such pressure, he owes it to the House to disclose who he is talking about. In case he gets hold of my reply and misrepresents it, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has sought to do with other information—I note that the hon. Gentleman has already left the Chamber; he is probably out researching this point even as I speak—I should say that I met representatives from the Machine Tool Technologies Association a month ago. I have written to that association to learn what minutes it had written up of our meeting, just so that we are both clear about it.
    Those representatives presented me with their demands for the machine tools industry. Those demands did not include any demand that we should sanction exports to dicey regimes that might use them against British troops. However, those demands contained a full list of the added help that is needed to provide investment in small industry and the stimulus for business to buy machine tools, as well as the help it needs for training. It is that pressure that my hon. Friends have constantly applied to the Government, and to which they never received any response.
    Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: No, I must get on.
    I have recited the replies that we received in the House. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister released the document entitled "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", in which he said that Ministers had a
    "duty to give Parliament and the public as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions of the Government."
    If hon. Members play back the answers that we have received on exports to Iraq and asked themselves whether those questions provided
    "as full information as possible about the policies … of the Government"
    on arms exports to Iraq, the answer must clearly be a resounding no. I doubt if even Conservative Members are convinced about that. No one else in the country is—at any rate, according to the latest opinion poll, 3 per cent. believe that Ministers have told the whole truth, while 83 per cent. do not.
    There is, rather remarkably, one person among that 3 per cent.—I presume that he must be counted among that group— who was possibly the most curious victim of all the statements to Parliament. It turns out that the Prime Minister himself was misled by those ministerial statements. Until two weeks ago, he really believed that his Ministers had always observed the guidelines. He was shocked when one of his former Ministers said otherwise in court two weeks ago.
    638
    The Prime Minister's defence is well known. It is simple, if inelegant: nobody told him. When he was Foreign Secretary, nobody told him that his No. 2 was in dispute with the Department of Trade and Industry over Matrix Churchill exports. Nobody told him that the Foreign Office was in dispute with the Northern Ireland Office over the Iraqi purchase of the Learfan factory. Nobody told him even when he was briefed to meet the Iraqi Foreign Secretary, and nobody told him when he was Chancellor and his private office was warned of Customs' concern over Matrix Churchill. Nobody told him what happened at the meeting of 19 July, to which he was invited but could not make it—no doubt because nobody told him where it was being held.
    It would take another John Bunyan to do justice to that Pilgrim's Progress around the key offices of state, preserving such invincible innocence. I am driven to wonder whether he ever asked why nobody told him. Since Alan Clark's appearance in court, has he had in any of his officials and asked them why they did not tell him what was going on? They knew—they told Lord Howe when he was Foreign Secretary about the controversy, and they briefed the present Foreign Secretary about the controversy.
    The Prime Minister had the same private secretary as those other two Foreign Secretaries—Mr. Stephen Wall. Mr. Wall knew what was going on, because he briefed those two Foreign Secretaries. Did it never occur to the Prime Minister to ask Mr. Wall why he was allowed to continue to state that the guidelines had been observed, when half of Whitehall knew that they were being broken?
    It will not be difficult for the Prime Minister to question Mr. Wall, because, after he moved to 10 Downing street, he appointed Mr. Wall to advise him on foreign policy affairs. I presume that it was Mr. Wall who advised him before he said in the House, two weeks ago, that, from 1985 until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Government operated under guidelines set out by the Foreign Secretary in 1985.
    There is one way to convince me that nobody told the Prime Minister—for him to haul Mr. Wall over the coals for having done such a rotten job of briefing him. If he will not do so, the implication will clearly be that, either at the Foreign Office or at Downing street, Mr. Wall shared all he knew with his boss.
    The President of the Board of Trade has a better defence that the Prime Minister. He has an alibi, because, during the key period of 1988–90, he was nowhere near the scene of the crime. He was busy writing books calling for a strategy for industry, a partnership with business and a programme for the steel, aerospace and car industries. Those books provide such embarrassing proof that his private views diverge from his public policy that I daily expect him to slap a public interest immunity certificate on the Library to prevent if from disclosing the fact that it has a copy.
    That brings me to the third charge against the Government. First, they armed Saddam; secondly, when he used those arms against a British ally, they covered up the fact that they had provided the arms; and thirdly, as the cover-up unravelled, rather than own up, they were willing to see three executives of Matrix Churchill go to prison.
    The President of the Board of Trade is one of four members of the Government who signed certificates seeking to prevent disclosure of documents vital to the

    639
    defence of the three executives. I have read all three certificates, and admit that the President's certificate was worded carefully and with great attention. I suspect that his was the only one drafted personally rather than by an official. It has the mark of being signed by a man who was troubled by what he had been asked to do.
    I cannot say the same about the certificate signed by the Home Secretary. It does not have the same stamp of an agonised conscience. There is one notable difference between the Home Secretary's certificate and those signed by the other three. The other three Ministers all signed that they had read the documents in front of them, whereas the Home Secretary's certificate said that the documents
    "have been shown to me".
    Such a formula will come in handy the next time he is asked whether he has read the Maastricht treaty.
    Let us be clear about the purpose of those certificates. The parent certificate, as acknowledged by the President in his certificate, is the one signed by the Minister of State, Foreign Office. In its opening paragraph, that certificate says:
    "The purpose of this certificate is to explain to the court why, for reasons of public interest, such documents should not be so disclosed."
    Over the page, the certificate says:
    "The production of such documents would be injurious to the public interest"
    and
    "it is necessary for the proper functioning of the public service that the documents should be withheld from production".
    The intention behind that certificate is plain: it was to persuade the judge not to disclose the documents. Let there be no pretence about the purpose of the certificates: they were submitted with the purpose and in the hope that those documents would not become public property.
    Back in 1956, under another Conservative Government, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, said that the Government would never claim immunity in a criminal case. The reason for that is easily understood. It is wrong in principle that, when liberty is at risk, evidence that could be vital to the defence of a defandant should be withheld. It was exactly that principle that Ministers endangered when they sought to prevent the defence from getting those documents.
    Let us suppose that Judge Smedley had accepted the arguments in the certificates and had decided that disclosure was contrary to public interest. Let us suppose that he had not released those documents to the defence and that the three business men had been convicted. Would the Government be confident that they had done the right thing? Could they persuade themselves that they had behaved honourably when those three executives went to prison?
    If they do not answer those questions to the House, they must do so to their own consciences, because the public interest also requires that there should be a fair administration of justice. It is in the public interest that justice be done, and justice would not have been done had those documents not been released.
    I fully understand why the Attorney-General was so keen to advise Ministers to keep the documents locked away, and why the Government would not wish to release them for another 30 years. They tell a tale of deceit, of how Ministers agreed in private to arm Saddam, even though they knew how brutal he was. They tell of how they conspired to conceal from Parliament what they were doing; how they desperately tried to cover up what they
    640
    had done when they found Britain at war with Iraq; arid how they let three business men face prison rather than release the documents that would show what Ministers had done.
    Those documents have convinced the nation that it was not the executives of Matrix Churchill who should have been in the dock but the Ministers who approved what they were doing and who deserted them when they were caught. We have given Parliament an opportunity to return a verdict on the conduct of those Ministers. Tonight we shall vote to record our contempt for the Ministers who misled the House, deceived the public and tried to muzzle the courts.
    5.18 pm
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    'notes that up to August 1990 Her Majesty's Government granted export licences for the supply of goods to Iraq in accordance with guidelines which had as their overriding consideration not to supply any lethal equipment and which also restricted the supply of any defence equipment; recognises that it will be for Lord Justice Scott, under the terms of his inquiry, to consider whether these guidelines were followed; welcomes the Government's decision to give the inquiry wide terms of reference which will enable Lord Justice Scott to examine all of the facts, including the decisions taken by those signing public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case; and deplores the sensationalised attempts of Her Majesty's Opposition to anticipate the inquiry's findings.'.
    It may be for the convenience of the House if I set out at once the order in which I intend to cover the principal issues raised by the debate. First, I intend to explain the procedures within which British export policy was conducted in the context of the changing pattern of events from 1984 onwards. Secondly, I shall refer to how the rules were applied. Thirdly, I shall discuss the trial of the three directors of Matrix Churchill and the role of Ministers in issuing public immunity certificates. Fourthly, I shall cover the establishment of the Scott inquiry, its terms of reference and related matters.
    In December 1984, the Government drew up a set of guidelines to govern the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq. Those guidelines were formalised in 1985 when Lord Howe, the then Foreign Secretary, announced them to the House of Commons on 29 October 1985.
    The then Foreign Secretary said that there were four constraints. He said:

    "(i) We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side;

    (ii) Subject to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations;

    (iii) We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict;

    (iv) In line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq."—[Official Report, 29 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 450.]

    Scrutiny was to be carried out by the interdepartmental committee on exports to Iran and Iraq, which comprises officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments as necessary. Not only would individual licence applications need to be

    641
    scrutinised, but it was obvious that, in many cases, a judgment would have to be exercised as to whether or not certain potential exports came within the rules. I draw attention only to the words "significantly enhance" or "prolong or exacerbate", so that the House may appreciate the detail of the judgment that was bound to be necessary.
    I make two observations. First, by no means all our major competitors were so constrained—[Interruption.] I should have thought that Labour Members would welcome the fact that we gave a lead in the matter. Secondly, it is obvious that any interpretation of those rules required careful consideration of individual export licence applications. The embargo did not prohibit the export of all defence-related equipment.
    The substance of that policy remained in place until it was overtaken by the United Nations embargo on all trade with Iraq that came into effect after the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. A change in the wording of the guidelines was obviously necessary to reflect the fact that there had been a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq war. Questions have been raised about the nature of the change in the guidelines and why it was not announced to the House. Those matters will need to be explored by Lord Justice Scott on the basis not only of looking at the numerous documents, but of talking to the Ministers and officials involved in making those decisions at the time.
    I should like to stress one point. It has been suggested that a change in the wording of the guidelines meant that dual-use goods and industrial equipment, such as machine tools, would no longer be caught because they did not provide direct assistance in the conduct of operations. In fact, during that time, scrutiny continued of dual-use goods, including machine tools.
    In June 1990, my predecessor, Lord Ridley, wrote to the then Prime Minister suggesting a consideration at Cabinet Minister level of changes in the guidelines. In July 1990, Ministers discussed the desirability of a continuation of the rules under the chairmanship of the Foreign Secretary against a background where circumstances appeared to have changed beyond those that gave rise to the rules in the first place—
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall not give way as I must explain the context of what I am saying. I shall certainly give way later, but it is important that the sequence of this part of my speech should be heard in one piece.
    The circumstances had changed beyond those that gave rise to the rules in the first place. Equipment from all over the world was being sold to Iraq. British companies were at risk of losing orders.
    I shall remind the House of the background circumstances. In 1990, Iraq was purchasing industrial and dual-use equipment in the world market from a wide range of countries, including the United States, west Germany, Japan, France and Switzerland. The group of Ministers decided to recommend to their colleagues in government that a collective decision be taken to revise policy, but not to permit the export of lethal equipment. That same group of Ministers also concluded that any change should be announced to Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a number of grave allegations today, one of which was that
    642
    when the facts were fully revealed it would become clear that Ministers had no intention of announcing the change to Parliament. I merely wish to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Prove it."] I am only making the point that I have read the papers that Lord Justice Scott will read, and I am telling the hon. Member for Livingston that what he has said today is utterly without foundation.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is the strategy of the Secretary of State today to be as follows: when documents of which he is aware appear to support his argument, he will quote them to the House, but when documents of which he is aware do not support his argument, he will say that we must wait for the inquiry?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is not my strategy. The hon. Member for Livingston gave an impression of what is contained in certain documents—which he cannot have read—that is diametrically wrong. I happen to have read the documents, and can tell him that I am diametrically right.
    Sir David Steel: On that point, will the Secretary of State explain why the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), said at a meeting with Lord Trefgarne and Alan Clark that he was prepared to anounce publicly then —as he was in January—the form of words adopted and agreed in January?
    Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that was not the meeting to which the hon. Member for Livingston was referring. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) is referring to an earlier meeting, but the meeting that is of consequence—and on which the House is rightly focusing —is the meeting at Cabinet level chaired by the then Foreign Secretary. It was at that meeting that it was decided that it was appropriate to change the guidelines and announce them to the House of Commons. That did not happen, because by the time that it would have been possible to do so, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had taken place.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The President is absolutely correct. A fortnight after the meeting that apparently relaxed the guidelines, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. However, the President has not explained why, if the meeting at Cabinet level decided that the House of Commons should be told, when Ministers were repeatedly asked questions during the next two years, not a single reference was made either to the meeting in 1990—which the President now regards as critical—or to the changes in the guidelines in 1988 or the many decisions in between that represented a weakening of those guidelines to the point of extinction. If it was decided in July 1990 to tell Parliament, why was there a failure to do so in the subsequent two years?
    Mr. Heseltine: Because they never changed the guidelines. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman cannot understand. The meeting decided that it would recommend a change in the guidelines and that if a decision to do so was taken, that would be announced to Parliament. However, the guidelines were not changed, so it was not appropriate to make an announcement to Parliament.
    Mr. Robin Cook rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members cannot just stand up when the Secretary of State is addressing the House. They must wait to see whether he gives way.
    Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will recall that, earlier today, the Speaker said that, when Government documents were quoted, they must be placed on the Table of the House. The Secretary of State has referred to Government documents, Cabinet and other meetings, and told the House that it should wait until Lord Scott replies before commenting on the matter. Those documents should be made available to the House; otherwise the Scott inquiry is just a way of silencing the House in its task of establishing the accountability of Ministers.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker's ruling was clear on state papers and direct quotations therefrom.
    Mr. Heseltine: In the event, as I said, Iraq—
    Mr. Benn: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, Cabinet papers are state papers. There is no distinction between one type of state paper and another. The Secretary of State has quoted from a state paper, and that paper should now be made available to the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It appears that Cabinet papers are not state papers. I shall take further advice and report to the House later.
    Mr. Heseltine: In the event, Iraq invaded Kuwait. These proposals were not considered further and were never implemented. The House will be aware—
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The President of the Board of Trade has stated that, when the Overseas and Defence Committee of the Cabinet, on 19 July 1990, considered the possibility of changing the guidelines on the embargo—I quote the words which he has offered this afternoon—"circumstances had changed." Did the Committee take into account the fact that among the circumstances that had changed was the fact that it was known that Iraq was seeking to acquire nuclear triggers to manufacture nuclear weapons? Did the changed circumstances include the knowledge that it had become public that Iraq was trying to manufacture a supergun with British parts? Did the Committee consider the fact that, three days before it met, The Sunday Times had published a story about British-manufactured titanium parts for the manufacture of Iraqi missiles? In the circumstances, was it appropriate for the Committee to recommend relaxation of the guidelines?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that that is precisely why we are having an inquiry. We are having one precisely to establish who knew and who should have known and whether these matters should properly have been taken into account. That is the purpose of the inquiry.
    The House will be aware that publicly available memoranda were submitted to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for its inquiry into supergun and exports to Iraq in general. The memoranda listed details of the exports from January 1987 to August 1990.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the President of the Board of Trade give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    The House will be interested to know that during that period—January 1987 to August 1990—Iraq concluded contracts for the import of defence equipment worth an estimated $11·3 billion. Contracts placed with United Kingdom companies during that period were worth only $200 million, less than 2 per cent. of Iraqi procurement.
    Even today, there have been references to export credit guarantees supporting sales of defence goods to Iraq, and suggestions that the taxpayer will be paying £200 million for the sales. The facts are as follows. The Export Credits Guarantee Department provided support for United Kingdom exports from 1984 onwards under a series of intergovernmental protocols. These covered both short-term and medium-term credits. From 1985 onwards, however, a limit was applied to medium-term credit for defence-related goods. As the hon. Member for Livingston said, at the end of 1985 the limit was 20 per cent.
    The total of medium-term export credits taken up between 1983 and 1989 for defence-related goods came to just £54·3 million, or 6 per cent. of medium-term credit taken up for all goods by Iraq. That is entirely different from the figure produced by the hon. Gentleman a few minutes ago. When he quoted the amounts that are outstanding—that have not been repaid by Iraq—he was talking in the main, with the exception of the £54·3 million to which I have referred, about goods for peaceful purposes—industrial contracts in British factories for British jobs.
    All exports, whether benefiting from short-term or medium-term credits, were subject to export licensing regulations and any claim against export credit would normally be invalid if such a licence had not been obtained. The defence-related equipment supplied under medium-term credit did not include armaments of any sort. It ranged from radio communications equipment to power supplies, video recording systems and diesel test equipment.
    That brings me to the allegation that, while rules were in place, they were flouted with ministerial connivance, if not positive encouragement. The seriousness of such allegations cannot be overstated, but nor can they be examined with the care that is appropriate without a full and independent inquiry. Certainly, they cannot be examined with only partial discovery of the evidence or selective quotations. That is why the Government immediately set up an inquiry under Lord Justice Scott.
    Of course there was a continuing debate in Whitehall about the desirability of individual export contracts. Some were turned down—for example, Hawk aircraft, civilian helicopters and small boats. That is clearly established. Clearly, Ministers and officials had to weigh what were often conflicting interests in changing circumstances. In interpreting policy guidelines, judgments had to be made about British contracts for British factories offering British jobs in circumstances where others in other nations were queuing up to fill the orders if we did not. No Government can escape, or should try to do so, from their legitimate consideration of our national interest in these circumstances.
    I shall return to the Scott inquiry.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the President of the Board of Trade allow me to intervene?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    I make the point at this stage—
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    I make the point at this stage. The Opposition demanded an inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries (Evidence) Act 1921. That was the request of the Leader of the Opposition. If we had agreed to it, the debate would not be taking place today. Little of the press coverage would have been permitted. The first consequence of a 1921 Act inquiry is that the matter becomes sub judice. Secondly, the time scale is likely to be of a different order. It is fair to say, however, that one advantage of such an inquiry is that the country might have been spared the activities of the hon. Member for Livingston.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    The hon. Member for Livingston applied all his energies to blaming my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman was the impresario who so debased the general election campaign with the cynical exploitation of a five-year-old girl. He has been up to his old tricks again. The headline screamed, "Cook Reveals All". You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might have faced so daunting a prospect with less than our usual equanimity. The hon. Gentleman is not exactly what one might call a Chippendale.
    Behind the gory headline, it was obvious—
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    It was obvious that this matter was being played for every piece of applause that the hon. Member for Livingston could find. He had no intention that—
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall be most grateful if the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will resume his seat. It is clear that the Secretary of State will not give way at this stage.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Livingston had no intention that all the evidence should be produced at once for a full appreciation of the matter. Not a bit of it. It was to be a selected quotation here and an inaccuracy there for day after day. It was to be another revelation and another gathering of pencil-sucking journalists, with row after row of discarded raincoats. It was not to be done with the flourish of a sort of Soho stripper. This was not a striptease, it was a Cooktease.
    I shall give the House two examples of the hon. Gentleman's techniques. In his letter to the Prime Minister on 13 November, he quoted Lord Trefgarne, then a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, as saying that the operation of the ministerial guidelines had
    "weakened to the point of extinction."
    I shall give the House the full quotation.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: Another state document?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is a document from which the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend quoted. However, I shall not quote it selectively; I shall quote the whole passage, which states:
    "The continuing ceasefire has necessitated reconsideration of the operation of the ministerial guidelines and weakened to the point of extinction any case for prohibiting exports of general purpose industrial equipment for fear that it might be put to military use."
    That is a very different letter. If the hon. Gentleman cannot even quote accurately from Government documents, what credence can we place on his preposterous allegations about the extent of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's knowledge of the affair?
    Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has now said that he is quoting from a state document—[Interruption.] Yes, he said that. I am asking you to protect the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am not engaging in argument. The House has responsibilities in this matter and the Secretary of State is quoting from a state document. Every Cabinet paper states, "This paper is the property of Her Britannic Majesty's Government." A state paper has been quoted, but the House is being allowed the opportunity to hear only certain passages that the Secretary of State wishes to reveal.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am quite sure that the Secretary of State is an honourable man, as is every hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady in the House. If he is quoting from a state document, it will have been tabled. If he is not, he has every right to quote from it.
    Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you intend to protect the House against what has become an unworthy rant? Can we be told why, if all that the Secretary of State said is true, three men were prosecuted? If all the documents were debated by Ministers, why were those three Matrix Churchill directors prosecuted?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House knows that the Chair is not responsible for the quality of speeches.
    Mr. Bob Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, would it be in order for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to withdraw his earlier statement?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Livingston was not content simply with selective quotations. Grubbing around in the undergrowth, he though that he had hit on another winner. He discovered that a telegram had been sent from the Foreign Office, signed "Howe", to our embassy in Tokyo seeking information about an aspect of the Matrix Churchill affair. Even that argument exploded in his hands. The telegram never went to Lord Howe's office. All telegrams from the Foreign Office go out in the Foreign Secretary's name, no matter who originates them. If it is love and kisses from the cleaning lady in London to the third secretary in Moscow on his birthday, the happy message will go out in the name of the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it another point of order?
    Mr. Benn: It is the same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nothing in my previous point of order reflected on the honour of the Secretary of State or any other Minister. I am asking you to apply the rules of "Erskine May". Ambassadorial telegrams are all state documents. We cannot discuss this matter if some people have access to documents. We have to protect the House, not one user.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given a clear ruling—[Interruption.] Order. How can I give a ruling if hon. Members interrupt me? It is clear that, if a state document is quoted directly, it must be tabled. That is the ruling, and I expect all hon. Members to abide by it.
    Mr. Heseltine: It is extraordinary that the whole debate is based upon quotations that the hon. Member for Livingston has taken from documents released to the court by the Government, yet not a word of protest is heard from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen about their ability to quote selectively from those documents. All that I am doing, without quoting from those documents, is to set the record in a full context. That is the inevitable consequence of a debate that has been originated by the Opposition, not the Government.
    Many hundreds of telegrams a day, from every Tom, Dick and Harry in the Foreign Office building, are sent out in the name of the Foreign Secretary. All that the debate reveals is that Labour has been out of office for a very long time. It no longer knows how government works, so Labour Members make it up and trust to luck. The hon. Gentleman got it wrong. The headlines faded—the six-inch banner on the front page subsided to an inside column headed, "Cook fails to convince"—[Interruption] Oh yes, it was there.
    The hon. Gentleman held about three press conferences, with more disclosures, and even the journalists began to lose faith in him. Indeed, even better than that, the hon. Gentleman is now beginning to realise that he has made a mess of it. I heard him on the radio on Saturday morning. I understand that he is about to carpet some hapless research assistant. He said:
    "I could not have done it all myself. My assistant worked all night."
    That was the basis of three weeks of allegations by the hon. Gentleman. It is a terrible warning to the research assistant about where the blame will lie.
    I want to deal with the suggestion that my right hon. Friends and I sought to cover up the evidence available to us in our Departments. The suggestion, which has been widely reported in the national press, is that we were prepared to allow innocent men to be convicted rather than expose the Government to the risk of criticism. If for no other reason, the Scott inquiry is essential to establish the facts.
    My three colleagues and I were each approached with a request to sign a public interest immunity certificate. It was not a collective decision; we were each signing in respect of papers within our own Departments. It was for each of us to read the papers in our Departments and to satisfy ourselves that they came within the categories either of security or of advice to Ministers—and if we were so satisfied, we had to sign.
    Lord Justice Scott will satisfy himself on whether we acted properly. He will consider what we said and did and he will have before him the advice that we have received from the Attorney-General, which my right hon. and learned Friend explained to the House on 10 November. I
    648
    shall add only one thing—that I want to express my gratitude to Mr. James Hunt QC, who appeared for the defence in the Matrix Churchill trial. In a letter to The Times on 13 November—
    Ms. Clare Short: He is not a QC.
    Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Hunt is a QC. It is intolerable that the Opposition should seek to denigrate those who are responsible for the conduct of justice.
    I shall quote from the letter written by the QC who appeared for the defence in the Matrix Churchill case. The letter says:
    "We feel bound to state that much of the reporting elsewhere in the media of the government documents issued has caused us to think we must have been present in an altogether different court.
    The plain fact of the matter is that counsel for the Crown said at the outset, when placing the public interest immunity certificates before the court, that the question of disclosure was a matter for the trial judge and not for the Ministers concerned. Public interest immunity cannot be waived by either the prosecution or the Ministers. It was for the judge to decide whether the interests of justice in ensuring a fair trial for the defendants outweighed those considerations of public interests referred to in the certificates.
    There was no question of anyone attempting to suppress evidence. In the event, the judge decided in favour of disclosure and the documents were immediately produced. Although views may differ as to the importance of the documents, the approach of counsel for the Crown to the question of public interest immunity was entirely in accordance with our understanding of the decided cases."
    I could not have put the matter more clearly. That is the position as I understood it. I would not have acted in the way that I did unless I had been absolutely satisfied that the judge would make available those documents or those parts of a document which he considered necessary for the proper course of justice. Therefore, I totally and absolutely reject the accusations of the hon. Member for Livingston. Mr. Robin Cook: I repeat the question that I asked in my speech. If Judge Smedley had accepted the advice in the certificates that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest and the documents had not been revealed, and if the three executives had been convicted, does the President of the Board of Trade believe that in those circumstances justice would have been done?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is simply another grave accusation about the judge in charge of the trial. The judge was in a position to exercise a judgment. I knew that he would exercise that judgment, because I had established beyond question that he would consider the documents. If the judge had considered the documents necessary for the conduct of justice, he would have released them. If I must rely on the Attorney-General or the hon. Member for Livingston, it is the simplest decision that I have ever had to make in my life.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have read my right hon. Friend's certificate. I think that it is an artful and true document. If it was a duty, why was the duty not invoked in the Ponting case when the prosecution made available, without Crown immunity or the claim for Crown immunity, the Crown jewels?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is about eight years since I stood here to deal with the Ponting case. If I remember correctly, I agreed at that time to make available the documents known as the Crown jewels to a Select Committee of the

    649
    House. I did that so that the House could have an opportunity through its Select Committee to consider deeply sensitive, secure information. Having done that, I was grateful that the Select Committee supported the Government's judgment at the time. The House was as fully briefed as possible, compatible with the immensely secure information that those documents contained.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Secretary of State is telling the House about the state of his knowledge, will he tell us whether he knew when he signed the certificate that the three accused had been acting in accordance with Government policy, and that one of them had been giving valuable information to the security services?
    Mr. Heseltine: The certificate that I was asked to sign did not ask me to become involved in investigating or even understanding the nature of the prosecution. However, it asked me to look at documents in my Department and determine the technical issue of whether they were within one of two categories. That is the issue which I was asked to determine. That is the nature of the certificate, and I signed it on that understanding.
    Mr. Campbell: It is a simple question, yes or no. Did the right hon. Gentleman know the information that I put to him earlier?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is clear from what I said that I was not involved, and I was not expected to be involved, in the conduct of the trial. I had not sought to involve myself in the issues that the trial raised. In no way was that my responsibility.
    We are dealing simply with whether Ministers should have signed the public interest immunity certificates. I was advised that it was my duty to sign them, and I did so on that basis.
    Mr. Neil Kinnock: I shall ask the Secretary of State two questions, one of which he has already been asked but to which he has not comprehensively responded. Did he know—yes or no—that the people who were to go on trial and who were the subjects of information contained in the certificates had been of assistance to the Government? When he signed the certificates, was he aware that they were relevant to criminal proceedings that would affect the liberty of the subjects?
    Mr. Heseltine: Of course I was aware of the significance of the trial and the charges upon which the outcome of the trial depended. That is why, as Lord Justice Scott will want to establish, I asked the questions and discussed the matter in the way that I did. It is essential that Lord Justice Scott looks at the matters. It is the only way in which the allegations made—I believe irresponsibly—by the Opposition can be adequately dealt with. What I knew, what I should have known, the questions that I asked and the questions that I should have asked are matters which will be properly examined.
    I repeat what I said earlier: I had to decide whether the legal position gave me any discretion in signing the documents. If counsel acting for the defence believed that Ministers had no discretion, why should I be persuaded that Opposition Members had a greater insight into
    650
    ministerial duties than counsel who were responsible for defending the very people that Opposition Members were concerned about?
    Mr. Kinnock: I recognise that, in responding to a question with another question, the Secretary of State is engaging in a fair parliamentary debating technique. However, he still has not answered two basic questions. I shall concentrate on the first one.
    When the right hon. Gentleman signed the certificate, did he know that the people to which the material related had been of assistance to the Government in collecting intelligence information which was of use to the Government?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentlleman must be aware that I, as Secretary of State, am not in a position to involve myself in prosecuting proceedures. That is not a ministerial responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the moment one is drawn into discussions on that subject, a vast range of sub-questions arise which can be dealt with only by a proper and full inquiry.
    The charge against Ministers is that they tried to conceal the facts from the court. I did not try to conceal the facts from the court. That is the responsibility that I bear. I have no doubt whatever that the matter will be fully—
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No, I will not give way. I have given way several times.
    I have no doubt whatever that the matter will be explored exhaustively by Lord Justice Scott's inquiry, and properly so. The issue that the House is invited to examine is whether Ministers properly signed the certificates. On the legal advice to us, there was no discretion.
    Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clearly important that the House should never be misled. It would be dreadful, would it not, if a right hon. or hon. Member were accused of seeking to mislead? It is important that we understand that no charge has been levelled against the President of the Board of Trade. A simple question was asked. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be dragged into anything if the honest answer is the simple one—no.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman was formerly the Leader of the Opposition, and knows that that matter is not for the Chair.
    Mr. Heseltine: In the event, as the House knows, the papers themselves were to play no part in the prosecuting counsel's decision to recommend to his clients, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, that the trial should be ended. The evidence of Alan Clark under cross-examination proved the critical point and is now the subject of investigation.
    The House will want to be satisfied about the nature of the inquiry to be undertaken by Lord Justice Scott. It has been kept fully informed. Lord Justice Scott has wide terms of reference. His inquiry is not restricted to the Matrix Churchill affair but can cover exports over the whole period from 1984 to 1990. He will consider the PII issue and the decisions taken in relation to prosecution.

    651
    Ministers will be required to give evidence and officials have been instructed to co-operate. All Government papers sought by Lord Justice Scott will be provided to him. He alone will determine which matters he considers relevant and he will be able to cover them all in his inquiry. Lord Justice Scott will have unfettered discretion as to what to publish and whether, or what parts of, his inquiry will be in public.
    Lord Justice Scott knows that if he feels unable to obtain satisfactory attendance or answers, he is free to ask the Government to convert the inquiry into a 1921 Act inquiry. If he asks, the Government will agree to his request. I do not believe that the Government could give more comprehensive reassurance than I have just repeated.
    I was dismayed to read in The Independent this morning an article on page one that carried the headline,
    "Labour raises doubt over Iraq arms export inquiry."
    I will quote the second and third paragraphs of that report:
    "Robin Cook, Labour's spokesman on trade and industry, also raised doubts about the independence of the Scott inquiry, saying: 'What we see at the end of the day will depend on negotiations with Lord Justice Scott and the Government … The inquiry is staffed by the same Treasury solicitors that advised those government ministers not to disclose documents in the Matrix Churchill case."'
    Once again, the hon. Member for Livingston makes two extremely serious allegations. The first is that Lord Justice Scott could have his independence constrained by negotiations with the Government. I utterly refute that charge. I urge the hon. Gentleman to confirm my understanding of Lord Justice Scott's independence. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that Lord Justice Scott would allow his independence to be constrained by Government?
    Hon. Members: Yes.
    Mr. Robin Cook: A moment ago, the President of the Board of Trade said that it was open to Lord Justice Scott to come back and to reconstitute the inquiry as a tribunal of inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that, if Lord Justice Scott did so, the proceedings would take place in public, the evidence would be on the record, and everyone would know what went on in private. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that there may be a case for coming back in that way and for leaving Lord Justice Scott to request that, why do the Government not agree now to allow the inquiry to take place in public—and prove to the whole world that it is taking place in public and is independent, and that the evidence is fully reported? If the inquiry were so set up, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it would not be staffed by the same Treasury solicitors that advised his Government?
    Mr. Heseltine: It took the hon. Gentleman a long time to think of that answer and a long time to give it—the problem is that it answered a question that I did not ask. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Lord Justice Scott would allow his independence to be compromised by negotiations with the Government? That is the issue.
    Mr. Cook indicated dissent.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, shakes his head. Why does he do so when in The Independent this morning he was quoted as saying that Lord Justice Scott would allow his independence to be compromised by negotations with the Government?
    652
    That is a scandalous performance by a leading member of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman has smeared—he has more than smeared—a judge of the High Court, and he does not have the guts to admit it. He does not have the guts to withdraw it. I hope that that point will not be lost on Lord Justice Scott.
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman just used the word "guts". If the right hon. Gentleman has the courage, and if the Government believe that they have nothing to hide and that they they can face the future, why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept the challenge that I posed a moment ago, and make the inquiry a tribunal of inquiry so that it will take place in public and we can see what the Government have to hide?
    Mr. Heseltine: Just by asking a second question, the hon. Gentleman does not hide the fact that he could not answer the first.
    Let us make a little progress. The allegation has been made that
    "the inquiry is staffed by the same Treasury solicitors that advised … ministers not to disclose documents in the Matrix Churchill case."
    The solicitor who will assist Lord Justice Scott was selected precisely because he had no previous involvement in the affair. Lord Justice Scott is entirely satisfied with that arrangement. The hon. Member for Livingston smears Lord Justice Scott and smears the Treasury solicitor, and only attempts to hide his embarrassment by asking quite different questions. The hon. Gentleman lowers the already low esteem of his conduct in the affair.
    I want to make one final point, which has been doubly reinforced by the conduct of the hon. Member for Livingston this afternoon. No one disputes the seriousness of charges being investigated. No one should doubt the Government's immediate response in setting up an inquiry under Lord Justice Scott, yet a political dimension has clouded the atmosphere in which the affair has been conducted over the past few weeks.
    A nauseating hypocrisy has flavoured the remarks and the behaviour of Labour Members. They cry, "Misleading the House." That from a party which secretly updated Britain's nuclear deterrent at a cost, in today's money terms, of £22·5 billion by adding the Chevaline programme to our Polaris submarines. Why did Labour do that? It was because an inner group of senior Labour Cabinet Ministers could not even trust their Cabinet colleagues, let alone the parliamentary Labour party.
    Labour Members allege that we endangered British service men. I cannot remember—
    Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the right hon. Gentleman to speak a little louder? I cannot hear him. —[Laughter.]
    Mr. Heseltine: No matter how loudly I speak, a large number of Opposition Members will never hear or understand a word that I say.
    Labour's second nauseating act of hypocrisy is its suggestion that the Government in some way set about endangering British service men. I do not remember mass pickets protesting at the sale of British weapons to the Argentines when Labour was in power. Then, Argentina was governed by a military Government whose civil rights reputation did not actually shine across the enlightened

    653
    world. Of course that Labour Government did not know about the risks of a Falklands war. No one knew—just as no one knew that Iraq would invade Kuwait.
    No one is going to take lectures from the hon. Member for Livingston—who, throughout his political career, has been enrolled under the battle honours of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and whose political career has been devoted to undermining the defence interests of our country. Conservative Members want an independent inquiry.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State will not give way. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
    Mr. Rogers rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to bowl me a genuine point of order.
    Mr. Rogers: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The truth is that I could not hear the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful. That is enough.
    Mr. Heseltine: It is apparent that there is a need for Lord Justice Scott to get on with the inquiry. That is the only way in which the matter will be seriously investigated to the satisfaction of the House and a wider public.
    Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Documents contained in appendix 8 of the Bingham report, relating to the BCCI inquiry, also bear on Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. Are they state papers, and are MI5 or MI6 intelligence papers relating to the case also state documents?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I certainly cannot advise on that.
    Mr. Heseltine: The case for an independent inquiry under Lord Justice Scott has been proved beyond peradventure by the behaviour of Opposition Members. Conservative Members want an independent inquiry to be carried out by a distinguished judge, with all the evidence, and that is what our amendment seeks. We will vote against the Labour motion, which prejudges the issues, apportions blame and affronts the independence with which Lord Justice Scott has been entrusted.
    6.11 pm
    Sir David Steel: I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on a very good speech to the Conservative party conference. The problem is that this House is not the Conservative party conference, and I suspect that Opposition Members are not the only people to resent being treated as though it were. There are serious issues to be addressed, relating to the conduct of Government; the motion attempts to address them, but a number of them were not addressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    I shall begin by asking some questions about the nature of the inquiry, and I intend to quote from documents, but I shall not name any civil servant in relation to those
    654
    documents, because I am old-fashioned enough to believe in ministerial responsibility. Ministers will know the documents from which I intend to quote.
    My first point concerns the nature of the inquiry. At the time of the internal Government inquiry into the Westland affair—in which the President of the Board of Trade had more than a passing interest—I complained to the then Prime Minister that, had she been living in the real world, she would have been charged with wasting police time. I am now concerned that we should not waste Lord Justice Scott's time.
    I believe that the terms of reference that he has been given are drawn too narrowly. In my view, it is not a question of inviting Lord Justice Scott to report on
    "whether the relevant Departments, Agencies, and responsible Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of Her Majesty's Government."
    I am prepared to accept for the sake of argument that they may well have done that, in relation to the terms of reference. The question is: why was an overt policy relating to supplies to Iraq declared to the House and the public while a covert policy was pursued by Ministers over quite a long period?
    A letter written today by the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to the reasons for holding an inquiry of this kind, rather than a tribunal. According to the Prime Minister, a tribunal would have
    "suppressed all questions in the meantime".
    That brings me to my first question. I know that the Secretary of State for Defence is to reply to the debate, and that the matters that I intend to raise are not strictly within his departmental responsibility, but I hope that we shall receive answers none the less.
    My first question relates to the current police inquiries about the conduct of Mr. Alan Clark. Like the Secretary of State for Defence, I am just a humble graduate in Scots law, and I do not entirely follow English legal proceedings, but the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong.
    Am I right in believing that the current police inquiries into the conflict between the written and oral evidence of Mr. Alan Clark are pretty routine and have nothing to do with Ministers? Am I also right in believing that, if a decision were made to prosecute Mr. Clark because of that conflict, the prosecution could be stopped by the Attorney-Gerneral? If I am right, I believe that the Attorney-General should stop the prosecution. Not only would prosecuting Mr. Clark make him a scapegoat, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) suggested earlier, but it would also do exactly what the Prime Minister said that a tribunal hearing would do—that is, render the whole matter sub judice—and thus hamper Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.
    The House wants the truth, not the prosecution of a former Minister. The Government appeared to be fairly easy in their mind about whether business men would go to gaol, and they will not lose any sleep over whether Mr. Alan Clark resides in one of the more salubrious open prisons. That, however, is not the issue. The question is whether Mr. Alan Clark will be available to give evidence to the inquiry, and whether the inquiry will get at the truth.
    That brings me to my second question about the inquiry and the terms of reference. There is an extraordinary provision allowing Lord Justice Scott, if need be, to come back and ask for more powerful terms. I do not understand why it should he anticipated that Lord

    655
    Justice Scott will be obstructed in any way; however, I wish to raise a specific point, which I have raised before but to which I have so far received no answer.
    Do the instructions given by the Prime Minister to Ministers and civil servants to co-operate with the inquiry apply to former Ministers? Do they apply to Mr. Alan Clark himself, to Lord Ridley, to Lord Trefgarne, to the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) —who had a walk-on part in the proceedings—and, indeed, to Lady Thatcher?
    That last question is particularly important. Information in the documents made available to the court makes it clear that in two ministerial meetings—in November 1988 and in July 1990—what Ministers were discussing required the Prime Minister's personal approval. I do not see how the inquiry can proceed effectively without the active participation of Lady Thatcher. I assume that, before drawing up the guidelines the Prime Minister received an assurance that she would co-operate; in any event, I think that the House should know about it.
    My third question relates to something mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade: the work of the United Nations Verification Commission for Iraq. Two days ago, in New York, I met Ambassador Ekeus, the chairman of the commission. The commission has done some remarkably effective work, and has been able to compile a list of all the supplies that went to the Saddam Hessein regime—not just from this country, but from others—before the invasion of Kuwait.
    The list contains some equipment from this country for which Ministers could not possibly be held responsible, because it did not go directly to munitions factories or other places that have been mentioned in newspapers. It went under the guise of hospital contracts, schools contracts and so forth. Nevertheless, the list is now in the Government's hands. I well understand why it must remain secret: it is essential to the commission's work that it can compare what it knows from its own findings with what the present Iraqi regime is willing to own up to. I want to know whether the Government will make the list available to Lord Justice Scott. That is a specific question requiring a specific answer. Unless Lord Justice Scott can see the details of all the supplies sent by this country and others, I do not see how he can carry out his task properly.
    My fourth and last question on the terms of reference is this. I interrupted the President of the Board of Trade on this subject, and I hope that we were not talking at cross purposes. So far as I can make out, the guidelines were changed twice—or, at any rate, preparations were being made to change them on the second occasion. I was referring to the earlier occasion when the memorandum on guidelines was changed in December 1988–January 1989. The documents reveal that the then Minister of State, Foreign Office—the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)—made it quite clear to his fellow Ministers in October 1989 that he was willing to make the change public and that he had been willing to make the change public at the time the change was made. The House is entitled to know why it was not told of the slackening of the guidelines and why the House was misled in the opposite direction.
    As we all know, the guidelines were announced in 1985. They were changed in December 1988. Yet the House was told in December 1990 by the then Minister for Trade—the right hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who is
    656
    in his place now—the following. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted only part of what he said; I shall give the quotation in full. This was in 1990, after the guidelines had been relaxed. In answer to Mr. Beaumont-Dark, then Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Selly Oak, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "The guidelines to which the hon. Member referred are clear. They were set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) on 29 October 1985, and since then they have been scrupulously and carefully followed in the issuing of licences. No other country has such a careful method for scrutinising applications for export licences and for controlling exports."
    Later in the same exchanges in the House, the right hon. Member for Hove said:
    "I assure him that we continually review our procedures for controlling defence exports. The procedures are applied most scrupulously and carefully. As he will see from recent events, we have further reviewed and improved those procedures, and we are open to further suggestions about anything that can be done to make them even better than they are."—[Official Report, 3 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 29–35.]
    The answers, I quote are important, because they relate to specific allegations concerning Matrix Churchill at a time when Customs and Excise had already started proceedings against the company and its directors. They amount to the Government's official response to Matrix Churchill and make it clear that the 1985 guidelines were upheld—and even, it was hinted to the House, strengthened—when in fact the reverse was the case.
    Dr. Keith Hampson: It is only fair to refer to the whole record. I have before me what officials said to the Select Committee—that in December that year they did indeed substantially tighten the operational procedures whereby they scrutinised applications, at which point certain companies, including Sheffield Forgemasters objected to the new, tighter procedures. The officials also told the Committee that the guidelines were changed in December 1988. That was said to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who is sitting on the right hon. Gentleman's left.
    Sir David Steel: Yes, that may have been correct in the Committee's proceedings. I accept that the procedures were being tightened up. What I am complaining about is that, even as late as 1990, Ministers were referring on the Floor of the House to the original 1985 guidelines. We were never told openly here what the changes were until recent events. That is the burden of my complaint.
    The Prime Minister's answer to me has been widely quoted in the press, but not in its entirety. The House should listen again to this exchange. In January 1991 I asked the present Prime Minister this question:
    "After the Gulf war, bearing in mind what was done after the Falklands war, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a high-level inquiry into the acquisition by Iraq of British arms and technology, including some from private companies, quangos and Government Departments, so that lessons may be learnt, and so that never again will our forces be faced with an enemy armed partly by ourselves?"
    This was the Prime Minister's reply:
    "There is a considerable degree of sensitivity about the supply of arms and equipment. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, for some considerable time we have not supplied arms to Iraq for precisely that reason."—[Official Report, 31 January 1991; Vol. 202, c. 1·102.]
    There is an elision, is there not, between "arms" and "arms and equipment" or "arms and technology"? Again the impression was being given at the highest level to the

    657
    House that nothing of the kind had been going on for some time in relation to Iraq. The House was, I believe, consistently misled at every level by the Government.
    There was an interdepartmental memorandum by a civil servant in October 1989 in preparation for one of the ministerial meetings. It was a memorandum to the Minister of State, Foreign Office, and it referred to the efforts being made by Alan Clark and Lord Trefgarne. It says:
    "Their letters are full of special pleading (Lord Trefgarne's astonishing claim that Matrix Churchill is somehow separate from Iraqi arms procurement activities/Learfan can be exploded by showing him the nice diagram in the FT of 21 September which demonstrates the organic connection!) and the letter from Matrix has all the hallmarks of having been prompted by and drafted in co-operation with the DTI."
    That is a very serious allegation for one Department to make of another.
    Another memorandum, this time from the Ministry of Defence in January 1988, argued:
    "We have obtained intelligence … that the lathes are to go to set up munitions factories to produce missiles and shells in large quantities. Had this information been available at the time that the licence applications were considered, the MODWG would have advised the IDC that the military assessment was that the use of the lathes for this purpose would constitute a significant enhancement in Iraq's capability to prolong the confict with Iran."
    That, surely is an admission that equipment was being supplied which enhanced the capability and was therefore presumably in breach of the guidelines, wittingly or unwittingly.
    Another memorandum from the Foreign Office—again I shall not name names—says:
    "It is likely that had we known from the outset that the machine tools would be used to manufacture munitions we would have recommended that licences be refused. At present, the Iraqis import most of their shells from the Soviet Union. The Iraqi aim is to replace this supply with local manufacture. It is therefore arguable that Iraqi capability will not be significantly enhanced."
    That gives the game away. If one argues that, because Iraq intends to manufacture its own shells with equipment that we supply, it is therefore merely replacing Russian imports and its capability is not being enhanced, the guidelines are, of course, beautifully observed. That is why I believe that the terms of reference for the inquiry are nowhere near wide enough.
    I intend no slur on Lord Justice Scott, who I understand to be a man of the highest integrity, but I do not understand how an inquiry into the Government's activities can be called genuinely independent when the terms of reference are laid down by the Government themselves. Why were the terms of reference not agreed with the Opposition parties? Had that been done, one would have had more confidence in the exercise in which we are engaged.
    I turn from the inquiry itself to one of the other issues which ought to concern the House: the way in which information has been concealed from Parliament and from the public. My party and I, and other hon. Members, have long supported freedom of information legislation. I have not the slightest doubt that none of these activities would have gone on had we introduced the system which operates in the United States, under which the public can ask for papers after a certain amount of time has elapsed. I do not believe that these memoranda would have been flying
    658
    around Whitehall if it had been known that, within five or 10 years, or whatever period the House decided was appropriate, they would be open to public scrutiny. They do not bear examination as they stand at the moment.
    I do not want to weary the House with quotations, but I intend to quote briefly from four memoranda. One, dated January 1988, says:
    "If it becomes public knowledge that the tools are to be used to make munitions, deliveries would have to stop at once … The companies should be urged to produce and ship as fast as they can."
    That was the advice that was given. Another memorandum states:
    "Meanwhile MTTA companies should maintain a low profile. Press or public attention would make it more difficult to permit fulfilment of contracts."
    The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Ridley, has been quoted many times as talking of the dirty washing that would come out if the Customs and Excise case against Matrix Churchill were allowed to proceed. The final internal memorandum in 1988 stated:
    "There seems to be considerable merit in keeping as quiet as possible about this politically sensitive issue."
    Merit for whom?
    The case for the defence put by the President of the Board of Trade rested on the basis that, if we had not made these sales, others would have done so, and that the sales were in the interests of employment. That ignores a number of issues, such as what was happening to the Kurds at the time. The then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe, told the House:
    "We have certainly been appalled by the suffering inflicted as a result of the large-scale displacement of Kurds from their homes in Iraq. We have proclaimed the evidence of chemical warfare use as compelling but not conclusive. It is clear that Iraq has a case to answer, and we have been in the forefront of pressing the case in respect of these barbaric issues."—[Official Report, 30 November 1988; Vol. 142, c.687.]
    We are now told by the President of the Board of Trade that pressing the case seemed to involve millions of pounds, worth of export credits and relaxing the guidelines. We must not forget why Ministers were reluctant to announce these changes or to let all this information come out. They knew what the public and parliamentary reaction would be to continuing supplies to Saddam Hussein's regime.
    The Kurds suffered then, and they are suffering now. It is clear that Iraq has succeeded in one of its principal aims —to establish a home-based munitions industry. As a result, it has been able to rebuild many of the tanks that were lost in the Gulf war, which are now surrounding the Kurdish safe havens for which the Prime Minister fought so hard months ago.
    It is a very sorry tale, but unhappily it is not a new one. In a speech that I made towards the end of the Falklands war, I spoke of Ministers referring to the islanders as being under the heel of the fascist junta. I said:
    "it should be remembered that we were happily selling arms to that same Fascist junta not long ago. Morever, the Exocet missile, which has been frequently been referred to as a 'fire and forget' weapon might also be referred to as an 'export and forget' weapon." [Official Report, 13 May 1982; Vol. 23 c. 971.]
    In Argentina, and now in Iraq, we sold equipment for arms that were used against our own forces. We should consider that in the context of the world-wide sale of arms, because, after the end of the cold war, the world is spending £450 billion a year on arms, and 75 per cent. of conventional arms sales go to the developing world. On the streets of Maputo, it is possible to buy an AK-47 for

    659
    $2. Our troops in Bosnia cannot have helicopter cover because of the existence of shoulder-launched missiles which have seeped through into former Yugoslavia from American supplies to Afghan rebels. The world is awash with arms.
    Unless it becomes a central part of our foreign and defence police to get international co-operation to stop the arms trade, and ourselves to stop export credit guarantees for the supply of arms and equipment, to close down the arms sales agencies, and to use the defence-related work force for more sensible purposes, there will continue to be tragedies such as the invasion of Kuwait.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are being invited to support the Government amendment, which welcomes the
    "wide terms of reference which will enable Lord Justice Scott to examine all of the facts".
    That implies that all the documents will be available to Lord Justice Scott. Many hon. Members are deeply worried that documents held by Departments or firms which may have been involved in this matter will be lost or removed.
    I understand the rules on written parliamentary questions being referred to other Ministers, but I tabled question 329 to the Attorney-General asking whether he would take measures to
    "prevent the unauthorised removal, destruction of and tampering with all documents relating to the sale of arms and components to Iraq, held within Government Departments and elsewhere."
    It was passed—abandoned I think—by the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister.
    That raises an important issue of whether the Attorney-General has been advising the House as an impartial Law Officer or as a Conservative politician defending the Prime Minister's hide. We require reassurance, first, on whether documents held by Departments and elsewhere are secure, safe and being held independently for Lord Justice Scott and, secondly. on whether the Attorney-General has been advising the House as an independent Law Officer or as a Conservative politician.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The accuracy or otherwise of the contents of an amendment is not a matter for the Chair. The switching of questions is not a matter for the Chair, and it cannot be responsible for the quality of answers.
    6.36 pm
    Dr. Keith Hampson: So much of today's debate, as with the press, has been taken out of context. The hype with which so-called disclosures have been released in the press and used by Opposition spokesmen is pretty close to disgraceful. I shall give a couple of examples. Four journalists wrote an exclusive in this Sunday's The Observer on the way in which the Iraqis tried to buy the Learfan factory. What surprising disclosure was that, when in September 1989 the same newspaper disclosed exactly the same story, written by Alan George? It has taken four reporters four years to rewrite the story, to which the only addition was a quotation by the ubiquitous hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
    In The Engineer of 26 October 1989, Mr. George again pieces together the Iraqi jigsaw puzzle. The entire Iraqi
    660
    network across Europe for arms procurement is itemised, such as the fact that Matrix Churchill had been bought by Iraqi intelligence. On the Nick Ross radio programme last week, that journalist said that he had to put this information in a magazine as widely read as The Engineer because he could not interest any of the major national newspapers—The Observer, The Independent and The Guardian, which are now so fulsome in their condemnation —in the story.
    Dates are scattered indiscriminately in newspaper stories—as they have been today. Most of the quotations that seem so damning are about official and ministerial meetings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, yet the war finished in October 1988. Of course, therefore, changes were made. Officials told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that the third guideline was amended to take account of the ceasefire. Year in, year out, Opposition Members protest their concern about the decline in the manufacturing base in this country, so how can they say that Industry Ministers should take no interest in that?
    Ms. Short: Two issues are at stake here: the first is whether the House has been misled; the other is whether Britain helped to build the monstrous regime of Saddam Hussein, which oppressed the Iraqi people, invaded Kuwait and then triggered a war. The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with whether Britain helped to cause the war.
    Dr. Hampson: No one could claim that we helped cause the war, although of course we helped indirectly to arm Hussein.
    Trade and Industry Ministers have a responsibility to assist British industry. The Committee had the evidence; companies were asking to be relieved of regulations and bureaucratic controls in what is, after all, an extraordinary market. In 1988, we sold £4 billion-worth of goods to markets in the middle east, importing only £1·3 billion from there. The middle east is a big market for everything, not just arms. In 1988, we sold Iraq goods worth £412 million and imported only £43 million-worth from Iraq. It is, as I say, big business. There was nothing to stop British companies selling goods to Iraq or Iran throughout the Iran-Iraq war. Throughout that time, there were trade fairs, to which British business men went. Ministers assisted them.
    It might be argued that this was immoral, given the nature of the Iraqi regime. Some Opposition Members take that view of high principle—but Labour Governments never took it. No sensible person, I believe, would take that view. This country was seeking orders from around the world, against our major competitors, and many British manufacturing companies involved in those sales were facing great difficulty. In that context, the restrictions were severe, and after the ceasefire they were relaxed to help this country.,
    Page XII of our report mentions, in the context of restrictions,
    "the consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side, subject to the consideration that we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations."
    There is nothing there to say that we cannot sell arms to Iraq. So of course British suppliers could sell associated equipment, knobs for radar, and so on. Retrospectively, it is possible to point the finger and say that certain radar parts and tank spares were later turned against British soldiers, but that is hind with a vengeance. One

    661
    cannot prophesy about this world. Existing contracts were maintained for perfectly understandable reasons, because companies needed the income and the jobs.
    As the situation changed, so did the requirements. The key thing is that we never shipped or allowed to be shipped any "lethal" weaponary.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: I noticed my hon. Friend's caveat, but is he suggesting that the Customs and Excise prosecuted Matrix Churchill casually or frivolously?
    Dr. Hampson: I will come to that point later—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it now."] I shall make my own speech in my own way. I readily concede that my hon. Friend has put his finger on a real point.
    Which lethal weapons really mattered in all this? The Learfan project, involving missile technology, was stopped. The supergun tubes were stopped right across Europe. In country after country, the customs managed to stop all those parts. The Hawks did not go, either. It was a different story elsewhere, though. I hope that the German ambassador and others will forgive me for saying that Germany, which initiated the use of gas in modern warfare, was the country that supplied Saddam Hussein with his lethal gas capacity—
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Royal Air Force used gas against Iraqi tribesmen in the 1920s. If he tells the story in its proper context, he must therefore admit that Britain has a heavy responsibility in this respect.
    Dr. Hampson: The right hon. Gentleman's history is a little faulty: the first world war predated the 1920s.
    The Condor II missile was a joint Austrian-German project, with heavy Swiss involvement. It had nothing to do with this country.
    So other countries, notably the Germans, helped to produce the nastiest possible weaponry for Iraq. Opposition Members may disagree, but it is clear that we said that we would not deal in non-conventional weaponry but would scrutinise other contracts, case by case, as long as they involved conventional weaponry. That was certainly not in breach of the guidelines after the ceasefire of August 1988.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: How would the hon. Gentleman define a power-control system used in missiles fired by an explosive charge? That sounds remarkably like a supergun to me. Is it conventional or non-conventional? The power control system came from a company in this country—in my constituency.
    Dr. Hampson: I cannot answer that now, so I will not attempt to. The hon. Gentleman gave neither dates nor context. Opposition Members tend not to separate out the dates, and say whether incidents took place during the Iraqi war or after the ceasefire—
    Mr. Kilfoyle rose—
    Dr. Hampson: No, the hon. Gentleman has had a good go—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Hampson: It is not my responsibility to answer, and I shall make my own speech. It seems to me that Opposition Members are slightly embarrassed when the facts are put in context. They do not put them in context, nor do they differentiate between the risks, case by case.
    I should like to deal now with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The House knows that I do not fall over backwards to support the Government's case. Indeed, the Select Committee was deeply concerned about a number of events. I should say first, however, that it is outrageous that Opposition spokesmen knew nothing about Lord Justice Scott. He is a fiercely independent-minded man and if they knew of his role in the "Spycatcher" case, they would not say what they have said.
    I trust that this inquiry will look into the reasons why the Customs and Excise proceeded with the case. It seems extraordinary that, just because a business man is occasionally involved with British intelligence, it has become conventional to imagine that he can proceed to act illegally. To the Customs and Excise, this man was fraudulently filling in forms regarding the end use of the equipment that he was selling. I hope that the Scott inquiry will look into that, because it is important not to portray Mr. Henderson as a new form of James Bond. We need to know whether he was acting honourably and in the national interest all the time, or whether he was using his connections with the intelligence service to legitimise or excuse his otherwise illegal efforts to make money.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, if, as we know, Ministers realised that these licences would be in breach of the rules but decided that they would be granted in order to secure the intelligence information, those Ministers were conspirators and partners to the crime?
    Dr. Hampson: The right hon. Gentleman has clearly not scrutinised in even the most rudimentary way the flow of information that Opposition Members have released to the press. It is perfectly clear that Matrix Churchill had the contracts in 1987. before any such involvement. The company certainly had the contracts before my former colleague Alan Clark made his speech to the trade association representing the company. There appears to be another distortion in this area, that he was telling Mr. Henderson—nudge, nudge, wink, wink—"You fill it in improperly 'for peaceful purposes'." He did no such thing. He simply spoke to the trade association, and we must wait to see how that was interpreted.
    We are entering the realms of myth and fantasy. Once the company was brought by the Iraqis, it immediately won contracts in October 1987. From what we have seen leaked in the papers, it seems that the Foreign Office Minister and other officials at the Ministry of Defence have said retrospectively that, if they had known in 1987 what was happening, they would not have allowed the contracts. However, as they had been allowed, and MI6 was involved with Mr. Henderson, as the letter from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office of September 1989 which appears in The Independent states, they regret that, but they must now protect their sources.
    If we wait for the Scott inquiry to put those issues in context, we will begin to see that there may have been reasons why, in relation to that company, matters were allowed to drift, and why it may now seem to have been

    663
    unfortunate. However, we cannot extrapolate from that particular case to the policy in general in the way that the Opposition have extrapolated.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: There is a great danger that the hon. Gentleman might leave the impression of impugning the integrity of Paul Henderson and the others who were acting for British intelligence. The hon. Gentleman does not know the facts; I probably do not know all the facts. I will be referring to some documents later, from which it is clear that, before the issue of export licences, MI6 knew what the machines were going to be used for and what category of shells was involved. Government Departments were also aware of that.
    Dr. Hampson: I await the Scott inquiry, and I hope that it will examine that matter. It is all too easy for business men in a very murky world in that neck of the woods to claim that everything is excused because of connections with the intelligence services.
    I want the Scott inquiry to consult the intelligence services and state clearly whether the intelligence services found Mr. Henderson reliable; whether he really was collaborating and on what sort of scale—[Interruption.] With respect, we have not seen that information. One member of the intelligence services made a statement in court, but I want the Scott inquiry to consider the full relationship with Mr. Henderson and discover what emerges.
    I do not want to be bogged down on that. I have given way on many occasions, and many other hon. Members wish to speak. The role of the Customs and Excise is very important. When we examined that matter in the Select Committee, we were deeply disturbed. They are the only totally independent prosecuting authority in the country. Unlike the Crown prosecution service and the Serious Fraud Office, Customs and Excise are not accountable to Ministers, the Treasury or the Attorney-General.
    Did Customs and Excise proceed in the Matrix Churchill case because of what happened in the supergun case? In that case, the Law Officers were consulted about whether it would be proper, as a matter of prosecution policy, to continue the prosecution in the light of advice from the senior Treasury counsel. They did not proceed.
    In the Matrix Churchill case, did Customs and Excise go to the Attorney-General? They did not have to, because they are not accountable to him, and it looks as if they did not. If they did not, why did the Attorney-General still not stop the case? We have heard that it is possible under Customs and Excise legislation that the Director of Public Prosecutions
    "may take over proceedings instituted by the Commissioners and withdraw them and may be directed by the Attorney-General to do so."
    It is important to know why Customs and Excise proceeded with the case. It is pretty obvious that they must have known that intelligence was involved. However, they still proceeded with the case. At what stage were Ministers aware of that? If they were aware, why did they not step in and stop the case?
    Mr. Clark was quizzed on those matters by the Select Committee, in the context of the role of the intelligence services, and specifically about Matrix Churchill. He said that the case was sub judice, and that he could not comment on the latter.
    However, when he was asked about the role of the intelligence services in relation to the supergun affair, he
    664
    said that there was no question that, so far as he was aware, the intelligence services had used the companies to sell items to discover what was happening in the Iraqi military. When asked specifically whether he had asked his Department and whether he was convinced that that was the position, he said, "Correct." However, at another point, he said that he could not give an answer that would illuminate the activities of the intelligence services.
    Therefore, we found ourselves in a trap. Mr. Clark may have been speaking for the intelligence services in the Ministry of Defence, but not for the intelligence services as a whole. In that area, we probably received rather disingenuous answers, or words that were very carefully and cautiously devised.
    Arms dealing in the middle east is a particularly murky world. We heard about kickbacks of up to 25 per cent. of contracts. We know about the kind of people who arrange such things out there. Information about those very dubious and deceitful operations arrived in a Department manned by a handful of civil servants of pretty low rank.
    The scale of the problem was staggering. In 1988, there were 57 staff in the Export Control Organisation, who handled 92,280 applications. They also handled the inquiries about the supergun case as people telephoned to ask for advice and guidance. The organisation had only just been set up. Many other operations had been brought together only the previous year under the one organisation, and there was huge responsibility on the shoulders of men of executive officer rank in the organisation. They had to make judgments and, at grade 7, they had to decide whether to pass the matter on to Ministers.
    It is clear from the table in the Select Committee report that, because of the ceasefire, fewer cases were passed on to Ministers. At that time, the Export Control Organisation was primarily concerned with the cold war, the Warsaw pact and high-tee COCOM material. Iraq was not their primary consideration. It is very important to bear in mind the context and the personalities before one begins to imagine great conspiracy theories.
    The Select Committee decided that, whatever the role of the intelligence services, there had been a cock-up in the way in which the supergun affair had been handled. We also concluded that, because of the way in which it had been handled, Ministers accepted that it had been handled wrongly and badly, and changes had to be made.
    Mr. Doug Hoyle: I was not going to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, because I always listen to him with interest in the Select Committee. However, the cock-up theory belonged to the Conservative side of that Committee and not to the Labour side. He was not the only hon. Member to share those opinions.
    Dr. Hampson: That simply proves that the Labour party will seek a conspiracy wherever it believes one might rest. From the very beginning, at least two Labour members of the Select Committee wanted to blame everything on the British Government and so camouflage and whitewash the British intelligence services. The rest of us looked at the matter more objectively and accepted that the intelligence services could be blamed in part. However, we also recognised what was happening in the Department.

    665
    However, as a result of the way in which the case was handled, changes were made. Alan Clark said that he was most unhappy with the situation that had transpired over the handling of the Astra side of the affair. There are questions about why he did not have his permanent secretary consider other activities in that area and at the contract stage, and therefore possibly stop the case. Nevertheless, such issues will emerge in the Scott inquiry.
    At long last, computer systems were installed in the Department of Trade and Industry. The sensitive technologies division and the sensitive areas division were brought together. That had not been possible before. Applications involving Iraq and SRC were brought together so that those rather junior officials could make their judgments. We do not want to hide behind the Scott inquiry, but it is not acceptable for Opposition Members to build a great edifice of conspiracy and distortion.
    6.58 pm
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) says that he wants some dates and that the context in relation to dates is important, so let me give him some dates. Let me give him the date of 25 February 1989. That is the date on which steel tubes bound for the supergun were flown from Manchester airport to Mosul, Iraq on an Iraqi plane, flight IA 14707—tubes sent with an export licence from the Government which went to form part of the supergun that was found after Saddam Hussein was defeated.
    When I put it to the Prime Minister that that was a breach of the embargo, and I said in my letter to the Prime Minister of 31 January this year that the giant steel tubes intended for the Baby Babylon supergun were on an Iraqi air force Ilyushin 76 cargo plane, the only correction that the Prime Minister made was that it was not an Iraqi air force plance, but an Iraqi Airways plane. The Prime Minister acknowledged that, with the knowledge of the Government, because export licences had had to be granted by the very—
    Dr. Hampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kaufman: I am not giving way immediately to the hon. Gentleman. He spoke for a very long time, and I am now going to make my speech.
    Dr. Hampson rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House knows the rule that, if the person who has the floor does not give way, other hon. Members must resume their seats.
    Mr. Kaufman: It is not a reflection on the hon. Gentleman, it is a clear statement of the fact that the Prime Minister acknowledged to me in a letter dated 17 February this year that the Government knew that parts of the supergun were exported from Ringway airport in Manchester on 25 February 1989, and yet the Foreign Secretary has written me a letter only today in which he said that they did not learn of the involvement of British companies in supplying tubes for the Iraqi long-range or supergun project until 30 March 1990; yet a year previously the Government had licensed the export from Manchester of parts of that supergun.
    I will give the hon. Gentleman another date. I will give the hon. Gentleman the date of April 1988, on which
    666
    information was provided by an informant to MI5 of the nature of the supergun. That information was passed from MI5 to MI6, and MI6 circulated that information to the Foreign Secretary, so that the Foreign Secretary had it two years before he says in two letters to me that he first learned about the British participation in the supergun.
    The hon. Gentleman has disgracefully traduced Mr. Paul Henderson: Customs and Excise withdrew the prosecution against Mr. Henderson, yet the hon. Gentleman is smearing Mr. Henderson's name on the Floor of the House when he has no defence whatever. Mr. Paul Henderson gave information in October 1989 about the supergun directly to MI6, and MI6 then directly passed that information to the Foreign Secretary, as it was obliged to do, because the Foreign Secretary is the Minister in charge of MI6.
    I will give the hon. Gentleman another date, since he wants dates. I will give him August 1988, when the present Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary. Information was given by Mr. Henderson about project 1728, a plant stocked with British machine tools to modify the Scud missiles which, in the Gulf war, were fired at Israel, at Saudi Arabia and at Bahrain as well. That is another date.
    Those facts were available to the Government, and they show that the Government were lying to Parliament when they told Parliament that they were not aware of the way in which those matters were being conducted.
    Dr. Hampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kaufman: I will proceed a little further before I do so.
    What we heard this afternoon from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was greatly inflated rhetoric, which did not even work with his own side, and a minimum of fact. What was interesting, though, was that, when he was questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and others about why he signed the certificates of immunity, he said that he signed them only after he had assured himself that they could nevertheless be available to the court at the discretion of the judge.
    By that, the right hon. Gentleman was saying that he had the right to decide whether or not to sign them. He said very honourably—his role in this matter has been far more honourable than that of any other member of the Government—that he would not have signed them if he had believed that the men on trial would not receive a fair trial. Therefore, he was saying that he need not have signed them. Therefore, all the stories that have been put about by the Government that it was Ministers' duty to sign them is nonsense, because Ministers have a right to decide whether to or not, and the Secretary of State, very understandably and creditably, agonised before signing them.
    But I go further than that. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry knew, if anybody did, how the advice of the Law Officer could be misused, because the advice of the Law Officer was used against him on the Westland affair. Therefore, he should have been the last person to trust the advice of the Attorney-General. I shall return to that matter.
    Although the Secretary of State was the victim of Westland, it has to be said that the Westland scandal, although serious, went no further than the fate of one helicopter company. This scandal is worse than Westland.

    667
    This scandal also is worse than Watergate. After all, Watergate was about a cover-up to prevent Nixon, Haldeman and Erlichman from going to gaol. Crooks though they were, they did not try to send innocent men to gaol in their places: they simply tried to avoid incarceration themselves.
    The Secretary of State says that he was worried—I accept that he was—about the immunity certificates, and that he took a lot of trouble before he signed them. The Home Secretary said that he did not know what was in the documents, because he did not read them. The Home Secretary did not read those documents, he did not read the Maastricht treaty, and he does not read, so he tells us, the crime reports in the newspapers, which one would have thought would be of great interest to him as Home Secretary. It is difficult to know how the Home Secretary spends his time, since Ronnie Scott's is not open 24 hours a day.
    This episode is comparable with the Iran Contra affair in the United States, in terms of arming a dangerous person. Yet, even in the Iran Contra affair, Ronald Reagan could at least offer the excuse that he was trying to secure the release of United States hostages, which is an honourable objective, even if the means employed were far from honourable. But this Government have no excuse at all for a cynical operation aimed at arming a dictator, who, moreover, had British citizens illegally imprisoned in his gaols in Baghdad while the British Government were helping to arm him, and the British taxpayer was making the arms a free gift to him through unrequited export credits.
    Dr. Hampson: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he cited the material which we looked at in the Select Committee, and he got it wrong. There is no evidence that the Government knew about the participation, to use the right hon. Gentleman's word, in project Babylon, even though the Government knew about the existence of the supergun project from intelligence sources in September 1989—not from Mr. Henderson but from other sources, as we said in our report.
    Regarding the flight, the reason the tubes flew out from Manchester and from other ports was not because they were given a licence, as the right hon. Gentleman should know; it was determined by the officials concerned that they did not need a licence because they were claiming that they were for the petrochemical industry—they were camouflaging the intent.
    Mr. Kaufman: It is curious that the hon. Member should lend his authority to that explanation, as the Prime Minister does not. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 30 January saying:
    "The giant steel tubes intended for the Baby Babylon supergun were flown from Manchester airport to Mosul Iraq on an Iraqi air force Ilyushin 76 cargo plane flight IA14707 on 25th February 1989."
    Instead of offering all the complications that the hon. Gentleman offered me, the Prime Minister merely denied that it was an Iraqi air force plane, and said that it was an Iraqi Airways plane. Otherwise, he accepted everything that I had written to him.
    The Government are trying to turn Alan Clark into the fall guy for this affair, and he is not the fall guy. They are—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the 10-minute rule hits even Privy Councillors.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. Rupert Allason: I shall leave issues involved in the Howe guidelines and the sale of dual purpose equipment to the judgment of Justice Scott. I have full confidence in him. Having read his judgments during the Peter Wright affair, no one could accept the view of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who impugned his reputation. I was surprised and disappointed by the hon. Gentleman, because he did not seem to have much grasp of the Official Secrets Act 1911 or the Public Records Acts. If he believes that those documents will ever be released—even after 30 years, as he said—I am afraid that he is in for a disappointment.
    Two central issues can be discussed without preempting Lord Justice Scott's verdict. The first is the protection of sources. On analysis, the Matrix Churchill fiasco boils down to that issue. The protection of sources is enormously important to the security and intelligence services. It does not exist for the convenience of Ministers and officials—it is to protect people who often risk their lives, and certainly break confidences, by supplying to the appropriate authorities information that they regard as being in the national interest. It is up to the security and intelligence services to make that judgment.
    Some agents have been working to their own agenda when supplying information. We know that that was the case with the Littlejohn brothers, for example, because they had been supplying information on the provisional IRA to the secret intelligence services, but those services expressed astonishment when the brothers said that MI6 had allowed them to rob banks. That turned out to be completely bogus.
    There is always a danger that security and intelligence sources may not be supervised and that they may be manipulating their case officers. A recent example was Brian Nelson in Northern Ireland, who supplied information which saved many dozens of lives in that troubled Province. However, we also know that he masterminded sectarian murders and took advantage of military intelligence.
    With Matrix Churchill, it was not a case of protection of sources, because Paul Henderson was keen to disclose that he had been an informant for the security service and we know from the prosecution case—from witness B, who was an officer of the security service—that he had supplied that information. So the crucial issue of protection of sources is not strictly relevant in that case. The public interest immunity certificates and how they came to be signed—who gave the advice that four certificates should be signed in one criminal prosecution, and the advice given to Ministers at the time—are relevant.
    The House is entitled to ask how public interest immunity certificates work. We have heard one version from the Secretary of State, who simply said that he has a duty to decide whether the interests of security or of advice to Ministers are involved. He said that it is a black and white issue: if the documents before him cover those topics, he has a duty to sign. The Secretary of State said that he received that advice from the Attorney-General. We know that the latter has a particular view of public interest immunity certificates, because he wrote a letter to

    669
    The Times to explain that it was a type of application to the judge, and that it was up to the judge to decide whether to accept the advice given in the certificate.
    I am bound to tell the House that that is not my experience of how public interest certificates work. My right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary signed such a certificate against me on 10 September 1989, to prevent two important witnesses from giving evidence at an imminent trial. It will help the House if I describe what took place, as it undermines the proposition that a certificate is some sort of application to the judge. In my experience, that simply is not so. Lord Justice Smedley was certainly courageous, but he may well have been unique in challenging such a certificate.
    I shall explain briefly what happened in that case. In June 1989 I served a subpoena on two former secret intelligence service officers, whose names are well known and have been published many times. I sought them to give evidence in a case against a proven perjurer. The Foreign Secretary did not sign a public interest immunity certificate to prevent them from giving evidence until September 1989. I have a particular interest in that episode, but the House will be interested to know the judgment in that case because I had the temerity to challenge what the then Home Secretary stated in his certificate.
    The judge was not a complete novice in matters of national security. By a strange coincidence—it was no more than that—he is the son of a former Home Secretary and the brother of a Secretary of State then and of one today. The judge said:
    "On the hearing of the summons there were put before me an affidavit by Mrs. Susan Elizabeth Marsh of the Attorney-General's Department, an affidavit by Mr. David Brummell, an Assistant Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the Attorney-General and two affidavits sworn by … the Second Defendant's solicitor. Mrs. Marsh's affidavit exhibited a copy of a certificate made by the Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the 10th September, 1989. I was not given a sight of any documents at all relating to this matter before the hearing started on the 13th September and, for very obvious reasons, I am obliged to prepare and deliver this judgment at haste less than 24 hours later after rearranging my vacation list … The reasons why the matter had to be brought before the Court in such a rush nearly two-and-a-half months after the subpoenas were served were not explained to me. This is not a very satisfactory way of conducting a judicial hearing and of doing justice in such an important matter".
    It seems to me that, on that occasion, the judge was not shown any documents relating to the certificate. He went on to make a few more apposite remarks concerning ministerial certificates, when he said:
    "For the purposes of argument it was accepted by Counsel without overdue citation of authority"—
    because there is no overdue authority in these matters—
    "that in a case of this kind the Court has to balance the public interest in the fair administration of justice and the public interest in the effective operation of the security services; and that although the Court should pay very serious regard to the contents of a certificate signed by the responsible Secretary of State, in the last resort, the Court has a residual power to override his objection if satisfied that the grounds relied on by him are insufficient or misconceived or that there are no reasonable grounds for apprehending danger to the public interest"—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    7.20 pm
    Dr. John Gilbert: I shall start by citing a couple of general principles from which the Government might take some comfort, but I do not believe that they will take much comfort from the rest of my speech.
    It is clear to me that, where intelligence matters are concerned, it is perfectly natural that Ministers carry out policies and commit actions that they disguise from their own electorate. That has always been the case in this country and in any other democracy, and it always will be. In my judgment, the public fully understand and appreciate the need for that. It follows from that—again in terms of general principle—that when those policies, which are, from time to time, covert, have to be changed, the implementation of those changes will be carried out clandestinely.
    It is deplorable, of course, if our troops are killed or wounded by armaments manufactured here. We all know that that is an unpleasant and inevitable consequence of the international arms trade, which has continued over the centuries. It was not so long ago that the Russians were our great allies, but then they became the unspeakable tools of a dictatorship. Precisely the reverse metamorphosis was undergone by the Germans. It is a question of judgment rather than any great matter of principle as to whom countries sell armaments.
    The President of the Board of Trade was right to say —it was about the only thing with which I agreed—that the Labour Government tried to sell frigates to Argentina. At that time, I was the Minister responsible and I want that to be put on the public record. We were not very successful in doing so, but it is true that the Foreign Office and other Departments were perfectly agreeable to attempts to sell arms to Argentina. Those attempts were more successful under a successor Government.
    I do not happen to believe that the issues to which I have drawn attention are the germ of the accusation against the Government today. On ministerial knowledge, I am perfectly prepared to accept an assurance from the Prime Minister that he did not know of the correspondence between his junior Ministers when he was at the Foreign Office. After all, it is the responsibility of a Minister's private office to decide what gets into a ministerial box. Heads of Department need not, and should not, know about all the correspondence of his or her junior Ministers.
    I cannot get very excited about those matters when viewed in terms of general principle, but when it comes to the inquiry, there may well be some matters to which I am not privy that will be damning of the Government.
    The nub of the matter is contained in the penultimate sentence of the Opposition motion, which calls on the House to deplore
    "the willingness of Her Majesty's Government to see citizens put on trial for exports at which Ministers had connived and to put their liberty at risk"
    Junior Ministers did not initiate the Customs and Excise prosecution, because, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said, it has independent rights in such matters. Junior Ministers would not have known that Customs and Excise was about to initiate a prosecution. They certainly did not authorise any trial and they did not have any power to stop one. But they need not have held their tongues. They knew what was going on when the prosecution process started and the men finally appeared in the dock.

    671
    The junior Ministers knew of the initiation of the prosecution, and I want to know which of them, if any, told, their departmental head. Which of them wrote to the Prime Minister? Which of them got in touch with Customs and Excise and said, "You must not do this because we are involved in what these men have been doing"? Did any of them report to their senior political colleagues to tell them what was going on and the extent to which they knew that those men had carried out Government policies?
    Mr. John Morris: Did they tell the Attorney-General?
    Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a helpful addition to my list of questions.
    The plain fact is that three men were put at risk, first as to their liberty; secondly, as to their reputation—I wish that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement would wipe the smile off his face; this is not a funny matter—and thirdly, because of the probable great financial cost to themselves, to say nothing of the stress and worry to their families. The trial proceeded unimpeded until the judge learned what some Ministers had known all along. The prosecution then collapsed in ignominy.
    In one of the less worthy passages of his speech, the President of the Board of Trade made the jibe that the Labour party had been out of government for a long time. One does not need to have been a Minister to know how a Minister should behave. One does not need to be a Member of this House to know the difference between honourable and dishonourable conduct. The British public are perfectly capable of distinguishing what is honourable conduct. I believe that they are now waiting impatiently for the resignations of the Ministers who connived at and, even worse, were complicitous in the activities of the men put on trial, and remained silent as they went to trial.
    7.27 pm
    Sir Giles Shaw: I recognise the importance of what the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) has said. Few other speeches would make such a contribution, which underlined the need for the full-ranging kind of inquiry to which the Government are now committed.
    The fact that the inquiry is under way makes it extraordinarily odd that the Opposition, in the person of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), decided to launch an extraordinary tirade of allegations, theories, fantasies, hypotheses and hyperbole. I do not mind what one calls it; it all adds up to hysteria.
    I accept, however, that, as the right hon. Member for Dudley, East has said, there is a need for facts, proof, evidence, analysis and assessment. With any luck, that might lead to a few answers, which might lead to history. There is no great gap between hysteria and history, but it makes all the difference in the world as to how the House should comport itself in the light of current events.
    The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) asked a number of questions about the scope of the inquiry. In relation to one part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Dudley, East, I willingly quote from the terms of reference of the Scott inquiry:
    672
    "to examine and report on decisions taken by the prosecuting authority and by those signing public interest immunity certificates in Regina v Henderson and any other similar matters he considers relevant to the issues of the inquiry'.
    The points that the right hon. Gentleman has made are well within that definition of the terms of reference.
    On the width of the terms of reference, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will disabuse me if I am wrong in saying that, if Lord Justice Scott finds his powers to be insufficient, he can ask for more and will be granted more or, if he wishes to alter the basis of the inquiry, the Government will agree to that change. That was the inference which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale sought to draw, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would deal with that when he winds up the debate.
    I make those points purely to emphasise the wide-ranging nature of the motion, the inadequacy of seeking to speculate before the inquiry takes place, and the prospect that the inquiry will be the major determinant of the facts—the analysis, assessment and answers to the issues before us.
    We are discussing trade, exports and armaments. As the right hon. Member for Dudley, East said, the armaments trade is known to have a difficult character, to put it mildly, but it also has two important features. First, from that trade—from the preparation, research and development of military hardware—comes a huge civilian spin-off that is crucial to many other aspects of modern economic life. It is probably one of the most profound spin-offs, whether it is in radio, communications or other areas.
    Secondly, although we have been discussing high-powered weaponry, low-powered defence is also at stake. Some of my constituents grind valves for German companies that may be among those supplying military equipment containing those valves. Others make moulds for various forms of equipment, not knowing where they might ultimately end up, or bend high-tensile wire into certain configurations, not all of which will be intended for the domestic market but may also be exported to other countries. Moreover, many of my constituents who work in the textile industry may have supplied military uniforms for all kinds of regimes.
    Those matters are not of the significant character with which the House is concerned today but, nevertheless, they represent huge elements of the defence and armaments industry and much important employment to most of our constituents, wherever we represent. The House should therefore not write short the importance of the defence industry in relation to our constituents and our economy.
    Foreign policy and trade policy have nearly always gone hand in hand. There has always been a close association—it has been even closer recently—between foreign policy initiatives and commercial and trade initiatives. It is essential that that happens, because we require an evolutionary economy, access to markets and the development of spin-offs. What may have been a trade mission must be allowed to turn into a mission of wider application for the purchase and sale of equipment and/or services.
    As the right hon. Member for Dudley, East said, in all those endeavours one cannot decide that one is picking a friend for life. One has no right to assume that a country to whom one is selling goods this year will still be worth exporting to a year hence, whether it concerns geopolitical movement, collapsing eonomies or changes of regime. Let

    673
    us face it: we supplied the Shah with virtually his entire army and felt that it was a rational proposition for stability of the middle east. We must never assume that times might change. It is therefore a matter of pertinence and care that trade arrangements must be made.
    The role of junior Ministers has to some extent been impugned in the continuing discussions. As someone who has served in the engine room of government in five different Departments, I am glad that some initiative is occasionally allowed to those of lower ranks. It seems right and proper that lower-level Ministers should be able to take decisions. We are not picked to fail to use our own initiative and acumen.
    The issue that the hon. Member for Livingston raised was to try to attack and impugn the Prime Minister, but he did not succeed in doing so. Happily, it will not happen when Lord Justice Scott's inquiry reports, which I trust he will do as speedily as possible.
    7.34 pm
    Mr. Tony Benn: We are discussing whether the House agrees with the policy pursued by the Government. The matter has become so complex that we have forgotten that we are discussing whether the Government were right to have such guidelines on arms to Iraq. Were those guidelines implemented? Did Ministers speak the truth? Was it right to agree to prosecute three people?
    The case is straightforward and, as I listen to the debate, what comes out of it is the fact that it is nothing to do with a judge. Lord Justice Scott cannot assess whether it was right to put an embargo on Iraq, to make the embargo flexible or to prosecute three people concerned. The matter is political, not legal.
    On whether Ministers spoke the truth, all that I can say is that, having had 11 years of ministerial experience, for many of which I was responsible for supervising the COCOM restrictions as Minister of Technology and as Industry Secretary, I know that Ministers are kept informed. Every incoming Minister is given a thick brief called "a brief for an incoming Minister", which reviews the Department's policy.
    Every Minister who meets a Foreign Minister, as the Prime Minister met Tariq Aziz—Tariq Aziz referred to that meeting when I met him in Baghdad—would have a full brief describing every aspect of relations between Britain and that country. Every Minister goes home at night with red boxes full of letters written by every junior Minister to every other junior Minister about everything under the sun, Cabinet Committee minutes, security reports and ambassadors' telegrams. Furthermore, all decisions about the supply of arms are taken at the highest level by Cabinet Ministers.
    Therefore, given the importance of Iraq, which was, after all, of major strategic importance, having always been in the British sphere of influence as one of the world's great oil suppliers, I find it hard to believe that a Minister who held any of those offices, let alone the Prime Minister, did not know, did not bother to ask, was not told and was not interested enough to ask. It is a matter not of honour but of policy.
    To have a judge look at that matter is absolutely improper because it takes away Ministers' accountability
    674
    to the House of Commons and hands it to a judge whom we cannot allow the House to see. That is why I made an issue of the fact that, when a Minister quotes from a Government document, that document should be laid in the House. The Deputy Speaker said that Cabinet papers were not state papers. They are state papers, and if the House gives up its right to hold Ministers accountable, we might as well go home.
    Dr. John Reid: Would it help my right hon. Friend if I tell him exactly what the Speaker said, because I took note of it at the time? She did not refer to state papers but said that when an Opposition Member or any Back-Bench Member refers to an official document, they do not have to lay it on the Table as a Minister must.
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I recall the words that were used and shall return to the matter.
    I noticed that the President of the Board of Trade was shielding himself behind three lawyers. He said that he had to sign the certificate of public immunity because the Attorney-General told him to do so. He said that he knew that it would have no effect because the judge would have to decide and that, in any case, the whole matter would be decided by Lord Justice Scott.
    This is an evasion of ministerial responsibility on a matter of public policy. We have discussed the conduct of Ministers so much that we have forgotten that the story is part of an unhappy record of British relations in the middle east, which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will raise again on Friday. Iraq was part of the world which we took over when the Ottoman empire disappeared. Britain bombed Iraq with chemical weapons in the 1920s and a few months ago the Queen Mother unveiled a statue to the man who did it—Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, known as Bomber Harris. He was the squadron leader who used chemical weapons against Iraq.
    We planned to occupy Kuwait in 1958—it all came out in the official papers—when Selwyn Lloyd wrote to Foster Dulles stating that we might take over Kuwait as a Crown colony. The double standards of British policy in the middle east will be noticed by anyone in the Arab world who reads the report of today's debate. We did not take the same view as we took about Kuwait when Turkey invaded Cyprus or when the occupied territories were taken over by Israel.
    Considered in the light of what we now know, the Gulf war is seen to be a war for profit, oil and control of the region. Now we are suddenly told that the Ministers, who so vigorously protested their defence of democracy and human rights, were selling weapons to Sadam Hussein who was represssing Kurds and Shi'ites before and after the war. Those Ministers then said that it was merely a matter of flexible guidelines.
    Some 200,000 Iraqis were killed last year by forces including our own. Some 150,000 Iraqi children aged under five were expected to die by the Harvard medical team who studied the bombing of the water supply by British, American and French bombers. It is an act of odious hypocrisy then to say, as hon. Members have said, that our industry needs the orders and people want the jobs. The House may remember the joke about the man producing nuclear weapons in America. Somebody asked

    675
    him, "How can you do it?" He replied, "A man has got to live." That is the argument being used to justify the supply of weapons.
    I am glad that the former leader of the Liberal party the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) mentioned the arms trade, which is what matters for the future. I am grateful to the Committee Against the Arms Trade, of which I have long been a supporter, for providing me with information, some of which has been quoted.
    The international arms trade is a greater threat to world peace than the AIDS epidemic or the drugs trade, because it is supported by Governments. It props up dictators such as the Shah, Batista, Marcos, Papa Doc and Pinochet, who received the weapons to crush their own people. They did so in the interests of keeping down their people so that multinationals could make a profit for the super-powers that sold them the weapons. The fact that such people have bought those weapons then leads them into trouble with the International Monetary Fund, which tells them to cut their social budget as they must pay the debt owed on the arms that were bought to keep down their own people.
    There is a tremendous waste of skill. Some of the most brilliant scientists and engineers in the world are working on methods of death instead of means of life. Billions of pounds are wasted on weapons, when they could have been used to save life. A heavy responsibility rests on everyone who promotes the international arms trade—I know that all Governments have done so to some extent. There have been 134 wars since 1945, in which millions of people have died and in which the weapons used were often supplied by the super-powers. Millions more people died because they were denied the resources that were wasted in the arms programme. Every arms programme and every arms sale plants the seeds of a new war.
    What should the House do about the problem? Ministers will not tell the House the truth about the matter. Everyone knows—it has been mentioned—that Ministers use secret intelligence. Ministers are prepared to sacrifice intelligence agents to conceal the truth. I wonder whether Farzad Bazoft was such a victim, as it is not all certain that he would not have been repudiated, like the man who was recently put on trial.
    The House should deal with the issue by Select Committee. Oliver North was sent before a congressional committee and grilled for weeks about Watergate. When Peter Wright wrote a book saying that he had committed treason, millions of pounds were spent by the Government to prevent the book from getting into the hands of the British people.
    We are discussing the capitulation of the legislature as it fails even to want to make the Executive accountable and is happy to pass the matter to a judge. We shall all have to wait two years, by which time the people will have forgotten what the inquiry was about and the Ministers responsible will have gone to the House of Lords, and that will be the end of the matter.
    We should not pass the matter over to Lord Justice Scott. I have no knowledge of his work and he may be a distinguished man, but the House should take responsibility. The House would do well to get away from trying to find scapegoats. The central questions are: who should be allowed to buy weapons? Who controls them? Who knows what happens? Who tells the truth? Does the House take responsibility for holding the Government accountable or does it shuffle off the responsibility as it has on so many
    676
    other issues, to a commission, an agency or a High Court judge? If we take the latter course, we shall be burying the House as an historic defender of the rights of those we represent, some of whom were sent to fight in Iraq against an army that we had armed.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), if only because I am not sure that I share his conclusion on the nature of the inquiry. I agree with the Prime Minister and with every hon. Member who believes that we are discussing a fundamental issue which goes to the heart of our liberty. Three business men were put on trial, and there remains a suspicion in people's minds that those men were on trial while Ministers—who knew facts which were not readily available to the court and who tried to prevent the defence from knowing—were in some way conspiratorial.
    Those events beg a question which I cannot get out of my mind. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. North-West (Dr. Hampson) whether he thought that the trial had been capricious, and whether the Customs and Excise had brought it casually. I do not believe that the Customs and Excise did so. I think that it had reasons to suppose that the defendants had committed an offence.
    The defence maintained that their clients acted in collusion with Ministers of the Crown, albeit junior ones. If the conviction had been successful, would Ministers and civil servants who were party to the attempt have been standing trial? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it is essential that the matter is disposed of properly, effectively and with the widest possible remit. The judge will consider all the issues. I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he will agree to further and wider terms if necessary. I shall let the matter rest there, as I believe that the House and the nation will make a judgment and we shall learn the truth. The displays earlier today demonstrated some of the reasons for my belief.
    I am deeply worried about one aspect of the affair, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that there is a suggestion that Ministers are not accountable for the certificates that they sign. It is interesting to look at the certificates. I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the President of the Board of Trade—who had carefully crafted his certificate. His words make it clear that he was advised to take certain action. His certificate is undoubtedly the most carefully crafted of them all. It states:
    "it is my duty to assert the public interest grounds why such documents ought to be immune from production".
    The Attorney-General saw in that the lacework of the judgments of judges, and captured a little of what is at the heart of the matter: Crown or royal prerogative and the assertion that Government business is secret from the House and from the courts of law. Until 23 years ago, that claim was absolute. I cheer the judges for having diminished the absoluteness of what was an almost imperial claim on behalf of royal prerogative.
    I shall go further and state that I accept what the court has done and understand the reasoning of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. However,

    677
    Ministers are not the plaything of the court, but responsible and accountable to the House of Commons. It is not a question of whether
    "it is my duty to assert the public interest".
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has a little expertise in such matters—it was his Department which mounted the prosecution against Clive Ponting. In pursuit of the prosecution there was released into the public domain what were then referred to as the Crown jewels. That raises the suspicion that the documents were available to that court without exercising the terms of the certificate—the
    "duty to assert the public interest grounds."
    There is a contradiction already. No wonder the certificate is crafted.
    One claim that is made in the certificate of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is based on national security. It is a solemn claim to make to any judge. We know that from experience with the "Spycatcher" case and experience in the United States. No judge in our sort of common law society will act casually in response to a claim for Crown immunity. It is something that is treated with the utmost seriousness. In some instances, it is treated so seriously that there is not even a preparedness to examine the facts behind the claim. It is the duty of the Minister to accept accountability. I am returning all the time to the fact that no Minister can escape responsibility for his or her assertion that information or material should not come before the courts.
    We are talking about the most solemn duties of the House and of Ministers who are Members of it, which are to protect the freedom and reputation of our fellow citizens. If, following an assertion by Ministers—one so blanket and so grand—the courts decide in deference to them not to examine documents properly, our freedom is lost. We are talking of Ministers who are charged by the House and the nation to have a regard for the national interest. Against that background, we must insist that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, while engaging in the necessary lacework and intricate judgments and the cautious edging forward of the courts to try to redress the claims of past years of absolute duty, must focus on the first line of the defence of our liberties, which is that Ministers should exercise these responsibilities correctly.
    That is why we must challenge the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. We must challenge the way in which Ministers sign as a matter of duty. After all, duty does not permit of discretion. That is wrong. That is wrong for Ministers who are elected Members of the House. They are responsible, and when they sign they must assert that responsibility.
    Secrecy has been claimed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It seems to be said that every detail of government bears upon government and therefore must lead to a certificate of immunity. We are told that that amounts to duty, but it is a corruption of our process. Ours is a free and open system of government and the case that is before us provides the most powerful argument that we have had in years for freedom of information. The presumption must
    678
    be that the business of government is available to the people of the United Kingdom and their representatives on the Floor of the House.
    If we do not know what the Government are doing, we cannot defend our liberties and those of our constituents. That is absolute. Judge Brandeis of the United States once said that sunshine is the greatest antiseptic. I say that because there is a great scab somewhere that we know smells wrong. I argue that it is in the interests of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we start opening up our processes.
    It is in the interests of the Government that they examine what went wrong. There are Ministers who are still in office—some at high level—who were aware of the circumstances. They knew and know how men came to be led into the dock while they were party to the relevant judgments. Their conscience and duty to the House dictates a course of action. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should insist that it be followed. That applies also to their official advisers who were prepared to connive with them, if that is the charge and it is proven—that of trying to pervert this country's declared policy.
    7.54 pm
    Mr. David Marshall: It is significant that we are debating these matters on an Opposition Supply day and not on the initiative of the Government, who must have felt that by setting up a judicial inquiry under Lord Justice Scott they would avoid the full scrutiny of the House. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
    I believe that the debate would not have taken place had it not been for the persistence of some investigative journalists, of newspapers and of other sections of the media in constantly highlighting various aspects of the sordid detail which lies behind the matters that we are discussing. On this occasion they deserve the gratitude of the House and of the British public.
    I wish to raise the involvement of Allivane International and Allivane International Group Ltd. in the export of arms to both Iraq and Iran. There is an important distinction in the names of the two companies which will become obvious. I wish to highlight the case of one of my constituents, Mr. Frank Machon, and his company, Polmadie Storage and Packaging Ltd. of Glasgow.
    Mr. Machon is not some fly-by-night, get-rich-quick person seeking to make a fast buck at someone else's expense. He is extremely hard-working. In 1988, he was contracted by Allivane to move 1,000 tonnes of fuses and high explosives between Allivane's factories in Glenrothes and Cumbernauld and the royal ordnance factory at Bishopton, and even to the Brocks factory at Sanquhar, Dumfrieshire. The final destination of those lethal weapons of war was supposed to be Saudi Arabia. The job took 17 weeks, and Mr. Machon's lorries were running 24 hours a day.
    Allivane's contract was worth $17 million, but it could not cope with it. The Ministry of Defence was involved in looking after everything and it was desperate not to upset the Saudis. This led to several matters of great public concern taking place involving the police, the special branch and Army logistics.

    679
    For example, I understand that the first loads were 5·3 tonnes per lorry, which was the legal maximum. The Ministry ordered that they carry 15 tonnes, nearly three times the legal limit. On one occasion the M8 was closed in the early hours of the morning to allow seven lorries to speed through. As Allivane had not paid its bills to the royal ordnance factory, Mr. Machon's lorries were kept out of Bishopton. On one occasion he had seven fully loaded lorries containing over 100 tonnes of explosives in his warehouse overnight. They were guarded by armed police.
    How can such things be allowed to happen? Think of the appalling carnage in the centre of Glasgow if something had gone wrong. Such events must not be allowed to happen again, and the matters to which I am referring must be thoroughly investigated.
    During the period of the contract, Mr. Machon became concerned about receiving payment as a result of Allivane's apparent insolvencies. He states that he received a verbal guarantee from the Ministry of Defence that he would be paid even if Allivane went bust. He states also that the then Secretary of State, Lord Younger, was the person responsible for the guarantee, and that he had no reason to doubt that he would be paid if he completed the contract.
    By June 1988, Mr. Machon had transported all the explosives and he thought that his troubles were over. Far from it, however—they were only just beginning. He was owed £68,000 in the form of the invoices that he had issued to Allivane. He had to pay value added tax on the invoices although he never received one brown penny of the £68,000. Needless to say, Allivane never paid him. In passing, it is interesting to note that Allivane received at least £147,000 in grants from the Scottish Development Agency to locate in Scotland.
    Mr. Machon is a persistent, stubborn and resourceful person, and he has spent the past four years trying to get paid and to get justice. He has yet to get either. His efforts have cost him over £200,000 in legal costs alone. They have taken him to several countries and have led him to piece together the jigsaw that was Allivane and its role in the international arms trade. He has unravelled a great deal about the operations of the trade and the lengths to which Governments and Government agencies will go to cover up their actions and prevent the truth from coming out.
    In November 1988, Mr. Machon went before the Queen's Bench of the High Court in London—the case was heard by Mr. Justice Otton—where he took an injunction against Aerotechnologies, Allivane's successor company. The company paid £150,000 into court, and the court later allowed the money to be withdrawn. I believe that that decision was taken on the basis that it was shareholders' money. I understand also that the judge was changed before the case was finished. In the event, Mr. Machon did not get anything.
    This year, in Glasgow sheriff court, Mr. Machon was awarded £68,825·48 plus interest at 15 per cent. from September 1990, plus expenses against Aerotechnologies. It is a worthless award, because he was told that he would have to get the money from Lagan Investments, which is the parent company of Aerotechnologies and registered in Panama. What hope has he of getting any money from Panama?
    During Mr. Machon's investigations, he discovered, and alleges, that Allivane International Group was the name used, with the Government's knowledge, to ship
    680
    arms to both sides in the Iran-lraq war, in clear breach of the embargo on the sale of arms to Iran since 1983 and to Iraq since 1985. He has many documents which detail everything, including letters from the Registrar of Companies failing to reveal any trace of a company called Allivane International Group.
    However, Mr. Machon has letters from that company and from BCCI referring to that company. He has copies of DTI export licences issued to Allivane International Group—the ghost company—from the Registrar of Companies about the change of names between Allivane International Group and Aerotechnologies Limited and also from Allivane International to the DTI, and so on. It is all very complicated—probably deliberately so.
    It is interesting to note that Customs and Excise and the police twice raided the Scottish offices of Allivane, but the Crown office in Edinburgh took no action. Nor did it give any reason for its decision, which some Customs officers allege followed interference from Whitehall.
    Mr. Machon wrote to the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, but received a brush-off from Mr. Charles Powell, her private secretary. Mr. Machon tried again with the present Prime Minister. In a letter on 29 January 1991, he said:
    "What does alarm me most of all is that Britain has been supplying Iraq and creating a funnel through which every arms manufacturing country, even Eastern Bloc countries. have had the facility made 'available' to them to complete the shipment to the Gulf through Britain since 1983 up to 1990 … Since 1988 I have amassed thousands of documents, many in original form, which in the eyes of my Legal Counsel prove that we were to be sacrificed financially to safeguard the British secret … I appeal to you … to offer me the opportunity of discussing these papers in detail with you."
    On 26 February, Mr. Charles Powell replied:
    "The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you for your letters of 29 January and 21 February. He has asked me to pass on to you his regrets that his diary commitments are such that he is unable to accept your invitation to meet."
    By coincidence—I assume that it could not possibly be anything else—Customs and Excise also wrote to Mr. Machon on 26 February threatening to proceed with the liquidation of his company. So much for writing to the Prime Minister.
    It is still not too late for the Prime Minister to take up Mr. Machon's invitation to discuss the whole business with him, and I hope that he will do so. I also hope that Lord Justice Scott will invite Mr. Machon to give evidence to his inquiry. I know that Mr. Machon is anxious to do so.
    Is it not strange that the Ministry of Defence should work closely with Allivane—a company set up by Terry Byrne Junior, who had worked for James Guerin, an arms dealer and founder of International Signal and Control, the company which tricked Ferranti in a £400 million arms contract scam? Mr. Guerin, now in gaol, also had links with Carlos Cardoen, a Chilean arms dealer who controls Lagan Investments of Panama. Allivane also supplied SRC, the space research company headed by Gerald Bull, which was involved in the Iraqi supergun affair.
    Is it not also strange that the ghost company, Allivane International Group, should have used the failed BCCI as one of its bankers? Or perhaps it is not so strange —perhaps that is how the MOD and the DTI do business.

    681
    Is it not strange, too, that on 6 February 1990, immediately after the end of the hostilities, the Lloyds Bank International operations centre in Birmingham wrote to a technological corporation in America:
    "We are requested to advise you that Central Bank of Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq, have opened their Documentary Credit Number"—
    it gives various details—
    "in favour of S.R.C Engineering S.A. who have lodged a transfer in your favour in accordance with the following details".
    It then gives the account, the amount—just under $3 million—and the expiry date of 14 April 1990 in Birmingham, England. It states:
    "This credit is available by payment of your draft(s) at sight on Central Bank of Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq".
    Perhaps some Minister will tell us how it was possible, at that moment in time, for that to happen. Did it need Government approval? Was it approved, and if so, by whom? It is my opinion that there are few people in this country who do not believe that the British Government supplied arms to both Iran and Iraq between 1983 and 1990, because the Government are now wholly bereft of any moral standards. They have forfeited the respect of the great British electorate, and the sooner they go, the better for everyone.
    8.4 pm
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) will understand if I do not follow him. I did not quite understand the complexities of all he said. No doubt he will have an answer later. However, I listened closely to his final comments. He said that the majority of British people would believe that between 1983 and 1990 the Government were culpable by sending vast quantities of equipment to Iran and Iraq.
    That sort of remark is one of the problems of debating such an issue in the House. Although it is useful to have a debate, I am glad that the whole matter will be thrashed out in greater detail through a wide-ranging judicial inquiry. I suspect that after the facts are revealed, shorn of the sort of pejorative comments made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech, we will be in a better position to make up our minds about where the truth lies.
    I want to say something about the sale of arms. I have always taken a great interest in defence. There are certain matters that we should tolerate in this country, and we should try to get rid of a great deal of the hypocrisy. On the question of support in the middle east during that turbulent time, of course I remember that we were trying to arrange a sales deal with the Shah and that his overthrow led to cancellation. I do not attack Britain for what it did during the Iran-Iraq war. Compared with other countries, the British were knights in shining armour. The main contributors to the conflict were France and the Soviet Union, with the Federal Republic of Germany playing its part in gas warfare. Those countries sent death-dealing equipment—anti-tank guided missiles, SAMs, combat aircraft and a whole list of other equipment that we would regard as helping to sustain a war. We did not supply those.
    Hon. Members may think that the guidelines were drawn too broadly. They stated:
    682
    "We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side".
    That is fairly clear. They also state that, subject—this is where the vagueness begins to creep in—
    "to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations".
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said, one of the most confusing aspects of the debate is not the selectivity of quotations, but the selectivity of dates. Some companies had contracts before the embargo was introduced. They had to be fulfilled, so it appears that the sales of certain equipment occurred after the embargo.
    The third condition in the guidelines is:
    "We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict".
    We all know how to interpret that. It is a broad guideline. I believe that we came out of the whole business a darn sight better than any other western European country. The guidelines also stated:
    "In line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise regorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipement to Iran and Iraq."
    Behind the debate is the feeling not just that we consistently broke our rules with death-dealing equipment —which we did not—but that somehow the whole concept of arms sales is wrong. We all know that there is a murky side to that, but it was not long ago in this House when anxious voices on both sides questioned whether we could develop, produce and sell the European fighter aircraft. The great argument on both sides was that jobs were at stake. However, it was not the compelling argument, which must be whether the manufacture of a particular piece of defence equipment will sustain our security. That is the important factor. If we correctly understood the argument of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), he would have none of it.
    I do not believe that arms cause wars. Most of us have learnt the lesson that the nation that thinks that is a nation that puts itself in peril.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, when we were dealing with Iraq, we were dealing with a murderous dictatorship which carried out continuous oppression of its own people? The gassing of the Kurds in March 1988 illustrated the point. Moreover, from 1988 onwards it was obvious that Saddam Hussein had territorial ambitions. Although no one could say for certain that he would invade Kuwait, it was obvious that he was a dictator who could be irrational and might invade one of the neighbouring countries. Surely that should have been a prime consideration, in addition to the nature of the dictatorship.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: That is one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman should look at the records. He should not lay the blame at the door of the British Government. Iraq was not equipped with British tanks or guided missiles. My point is that when we consider the supply of arms, another side needs to be put. Otherwise, there is a danger that those who read the debate will believe that we should never make any arms and, least of all, that we should sell those that we have produced.
    Arms help to sustain our security. The sale of arms to our allies and those whom we think may be threatened helps not only to sustain our arms industry and enable us

    683
    to be more effective in the use of our productive skills but to provide employment and defend countries which we suspect might be in turn attacked.
    Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No, I wish to continue. We have heard so much from the Opposition today. I wish to give the obvious reasons why, when in office, the Labour party believes on the whole that it is right to have and sustain our defence industry and not deprive it of the opportunity to sell the equipment that we make to those whom we believe we should sustain for our own security reasons and for reasons of international security.
    It is true that throughout history countries have not developed policies that would preserve the peace. However, countries change, just as Britain has changed. Alliances change from one decade to another. There is no reason why we should cease the sale of arms abroad.
    I move on to the matter of the arms embargo from 1985. I said earlier that it was clear that the Government had drawn the guidelines broadly. They said that we could embrace but not sell lethal equipment that would significantly enhance military capability. Having listened to the speeches from the Front Bench and other hon. Members, I cannot conclude, with the degree of certainty that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) seems to have concluded, that the Government are guilty of not merely laxity but a grave injustice to those from Matrix Churchill who sold the machinery. I cannot come to that conclusion yet, and I hope that I will not have to come to that conclusion. That is why I welcome the judicial inquiry.
    We know that the company was bought by the Iraqis in 1987. I understand that it wished to sell machine tools. Machine tools do not automatically create lethal equipment. They are not described as lethal equipment. Such tools can make pots and pans just as much as they can help to produce missiles. According to the record, an assurance was given that the machine tools would be sold to Iraq for peaceful purposes.
    Mr. Henderson, who was the managing director, said that he believed, or it was suggested to him, that it was to the advantage of not simply his company but to the country to know if the arms went into the wrong hands for the wrong purposes. The intelligence of our country would be enhanced. We would have a better idea of what was happening in Iraq. That sort of thing has happened before, and it has been done by other countries. There is nothing intrinsically evil in it. One turns a blind eye because one believes that it is in the interest of the country to know through intelligence where a piece of equipment goes.
    Two of my hon. Friends have suggested that the motives of Mr. Henderson originally were not as pure as they might have been. I do not know about that. All I know is that he had to go through the awful process of a trial. I must sympathise with someone who is put in that position.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the time limit has fallen.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am particularly taken with the statement in the Government's amendment that their overriding consideration was not to supply any lethal equipment and to restrict the supply of
    684
    any defence equipment. There is an impression abroad that one or two companies are involved in this scandal of trading with Iraq despite the guidelines. We have all heard the names of companies such as Learfan and Matrix Churchill, but many other companies are involved in a similar cover-up.
    Earlier the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) made the point that Opposition Members should be able to give dates which fit into the context of their argument. I certainly intend to do that. The conclusion that I draw from the dates and information that I have about a company in my constituency is that there was either acquiescence or incompetence of a gross order at a high level in the Department of Trade and Industry. I am also mindful of the characterisation of Conservative government by Disraeli as organised hypocrisy. That has certainly entered into my thinking.
    I draw attention to a company in my constituency called Microwave Modules. Certainly as early as July 1988, Customs and Excise investigated the company. It drew the conclusion by September that the company had been illegally involved in supplying intelligence surveillance equipment to the Iraqis. The company had dealt with two agents. One of the agents was a major in the Iraqi army, Mr. Lathe Al Rawa, and the other was a procurement agent for the Iraqi Government in the United Kingdom, a man named Mr. Gadhir.
    Information was available at the time which showed that the company was deeply suspect in a variety of ways. It was dealing with several other companies at the time. The names of those companies will ring a bell. For example, Microwave Modules was shipping through Reynolds and Wilson in Surbiton equipment which was designated for agricultural use. The former director of the company became concerned when he discovered that his original company, Microwave Modules, had purchased shares in a company called RPV Ltd.—a company which designed and manufactured pilotless aircraft for crop spraying.
    Sky News carried an item at the outset of Desert Storm which suggested that RPV aircraft were deployed on the Iraqi front line against allied troops. A Conservative Member mentioned hindsight. With hindsight, we can all make many assumptions. The company Reynolds and Wilson had an Iraqi director who was shown in customs investigations to be involved in the importation of krytrons, nuclear triggers and capacitors which were seized at Heathrow. That discovery figured largely in the investigation of a later application to the DTI by Microwave Modules for an export licence.
    There is a sensitive technology section at Kingsgate house which deals with this type of technology. We should bear it in mind that Microwave Modules was already being investigated heavily at the time. Letters from Ministers acknowledged that that was the case.
    Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: No. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman later.
    Microwave Modules applied for an export licence and was told that it did not require one for the equipment that it wanted to export to Iraq. The equipment was described in the application as a special power supply to the Iraq state electricity board. Without being too technical, the

    685
    equipment has a specified duty cycle with an on-time of 45 or 50 minutes, but no specified off-time. That suggests a one-time use. Similar technology, developed by Paige Aerospace in Sunbury and seen by the DTI, suggests the accuracy of the definition that I supplied earlier to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West of a power control system used in missiles fired by an explosive charge—that is, a supergun.
    That went before the DTI, but, to all intents and purposes, the Department did not spot anything. That equipment included radiation-hardened and other components to a military specification. That company was obviously suspect and was investigated by Customs and Excise, but submitted a specification very similar to a military specification that included parts specifically designed for apparent use in a power control system for a supergun, for example. Nevertheless, it was deemed unnecessary to provide that company with an export licence.
    That information was made available to Ministers. Earlier this year, a private secretary at 10 Downing street, in a letter dated 10 March, referred all that information from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to the Department of Trade and Industry. There followed a letter from a Minister of State at the DTI, pointing out that it was a matter for Customs and Excise.
    The company's founding director resigned when he discovered the way in which the firm was operating and that products that he thought had been developed in good faith for harmless purposes were being traded with the Iraqi Government. Ever since, he has been attempting to persuade someone in authority to take his charges seriously. He has been frustrated at every turn and still has received no answer. I await an explanation from the Government of why no inquiries were made in respect of a company manufacturing an item which, in the circumstances, can only be seen as a vital component of the infamous supergun.
    8.21 pm
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is not often that I find myself mentioned in a motion, albeit not by name but as one of the British service men who
    "may have been exposed to fire from shells and rockets made in munitions factories equipped by Britain".
    I am grateful to members of the Labour Front Bench for their concern about my welfare. I was not in the front line so I did not encounter many shells—and the only rocket to which I was exposed was an ancient Soviet one. Luckily, it did no more than disturb one's sleep—shaking the earth with a tremendous explosion. Others were not so lucky, when they were targeted by Scuds.
    It is true that ploughshares can be turned into swords. Screwdrivers and spanners are necessary in munitions factories. The machine tools in question could be used—and perhaps they were—in the Iraqi armaments industry. However, which Member of Parliament representing a Coventry constituency—perhaps excluding the former Member of Parliament for Coventry, North-East, who took a rather unconventional view of life—would not protest to the House if Matrix Churchill had been forced out of business because no export licences were available to the company?
    686
    There was a need for balance. Viewing a situation with the benefit of hindsight is not always wise. At the time of which we speak, the west was buying oil from Iraq. Some friendly countries, including Japan relied on it. We were not at war at the time.
    Ministers were motivated by an attempt to help British industry, not Iraqi munitions factories. At that time, there were dealings between Iraq and Saudi Arabia and between Jordan and Iraq, and even Kuwait itself was assisting Iraq. In the eyes of those involved in such dealings, they were necessary because of the strength of their neighbour—and at that time there was a fear of Iran.
    The European position then was most regrettable. Those of us in the Gulf were most frightened of Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capabilities. It may not generally be known that we were all given inoculations against anthrax because of fears of Iraq's potential for delivering anthrax against us. We also had to take extremely unpleasant pills to resist nerve agents, which were a very real threat.
    It appears that most of that capability came from Germany, which was the top western exporter of arms to Iraq. The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee listed 87 companies exporting to Iraq. Defence products worth billions of deutschmarks were legally exported to Iraq in the 1980s. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out, besides constructing Sadam Hussein's bunker, the Germans supplied chemical warfare technology and substances to Iraq and upgraded the Scud missiles for delivering them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) made mention of France, which exported Puma helicopters, Mirage and Etendard aircraft, and Exocets. We remember the damage the Exocets did in the Falklands in 1982. Most worrying of all, the French were instrumental, at the beginning of the 1980s, in helping with the construction of a nuclear plant at Osirak which, fortuitously, was destroyed by Israel in 1981. Even now, I remember the howls of outrage from Labour Members when Israel destroyed that plant. Thank goodness it did so. I suggest that Labour Members concentrate on raising with the European Parliament the issue of those exports by our European partners. That should be done especially by Liberal Democrat Members—conspicuous by their absence from the Chamber—who would have had us in a federal Europe long before the Gulf war.
    Sadam Hussein's armaments were mostly Soviet and east European—T62s, T54s, Scuds, and AK47s. The debris on the battlefield was like that of the old Soviet army. Luckilly, the tactics that the Iraqis employed were as usless as those of the Soviet army turned out to be.
    The Matrix Churchill affair shows that, if allegations and complete nonsense are repeated often enough, the public will start to believe them. A Gallup poll in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday showed that 83 per cent. of the public believe that Ministers are not telling the truth, yet nothing could be clearer than the remark of the defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill trial that there was no question of anyone attempting to suppress evidence.
    I suspect that Lord Justice Scott will find that mistakes were made; that there was some naivety, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, and that there was inefficiency in bringing the case in the first place. The greatest mistake that Lord Justice Scott could uncover is that we failed to finish the job on 28 February last year,

    687
    though I imagine that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would not have been keen on us marching on Baghdad.
    Whatever mistakes Lord Justice Scott finds, I am sure that he will not discover a conspiracy, yet Labour Members continue to claim that one existed. In The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, the hon. Member for Livingston is quoted as saying:
    "The Conservatives not only ensured that Britain provided the machines that made the weapons that were ultimately turned against British troops. They also saw to it that Britain paid for that equipment."
    Britain did not provide machines to make weapons that were turned against British troops. That is complete nonsense.
    Those who see conspiracies everywhere tend to be either deranged or dictators. Sometimes they are both. Hitler firmly believed in a worldwide conspiracy of international Jewry and of freemasons to boot—a curious combination. Saddam Hussein, rightly, suspects a conspiracy behind every door. I do not suggest that the hon. Member for Livingston is deranged, or that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has delusions of authoritarian grandeur. But nor can I believe, and nor can the House believe, that these Minsiters conspired and connived—as the motion suggests—to send innocent men to gaol.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robathan: I fear that I cannot do so at this stage.
    We must judge the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Livingston for our service men—and his concern for me, for which I have expressed my gratitude—in the light of his past position in regard to defence. We must bear in mind his determination to do away with our nuclear weapons: only last year he described himself as a unilateral nuclear disarmer, not nine months after we had needed our deterrent to keep Saddam Hussein and his potential nuclear weapons from us. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. Let me also remind the House that, in early-day motion 948, the hon. Gentleman called on the Government to cancel last year's Gulf victory parade. Neither position would have found favour with our service men.
    Talk of connivance and conspiracy stretches our credulity to breaking point. Lord Justice Scott will find that most of it is much ado about nothing. The motion is unworthy of Opposition Members, and the House will rightly reject it.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: First, I declare an interest: a public company of which I am chairman recently bought from the receiver the remains of the Matrix company, and the spare parts rights for Churchill. Needless to say, no exports have been made in the period concerned accruing to any overseas country requiring a licence.
    Sadly, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) seems blindly ignorant of all the information that has appeared in the press in recent weeks. I shall go straight to the heart of the matter and say that it is obvious from all the documents which have come to my notice—I intend to quote from them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, mindful of
    688
    Madam Speaker's ruling—that before the granting of the first export licence in December 1987, the whole Government were aware of exactly what was going on.
    I quote a paragraph from an MI6 contact report. It states:
    "I had hoped to use most of this session to photograph drawings of sheets obtained from TI company files."
    That is a reference to the previous parent company of Matrix Churchill.
    "Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on view-point)"—
    having read "Spycatcher", I am amused to see that reports such as this can have their ludicrous aspects—
    "my A4 sized photographic equipment was not man-enough to cope with 100 sheets of 3' x 2' drawings. If a photographer was available, we agreed to repeat the session on Friday 30 October."
    Many Conservative Members talked about context and dates, but it is impossible to be clearer than that: the licence was not issued until December. There was then something of a debate within the Government about whether it should have happened.
    Lest there is any question about who knew at that stage of the extent of the intelligence department's involvement, I will quote from a confidential minute circulated in January 1988. I shall not quote what was said by civil servants—a good lead was given in that connection by the former leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) Having read all this, however, I am dismayed at the extent of the compliance and the lack of moral fibre and resistance were eroded by the bullying tactics of the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. It is a great pity, and a disservice to the civil servants of this country. The document states:
    "The intelligence community recommends against revoking the licences as they fear for the safety of their source, and they also believe that far more important information could cease to become available as a result."
    It could not be clearer than that.
    The document went to 17 people, and must have reached the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. If the President of the Board of Trade cannot tell us today whether he knew or not, that is the clearest possible proof that he did know. I only regret that he would not give way to me so that I could make the position clear to him and the House.
    It is clear from the confidential briefings of those who attended the meetings in January that the Government were in on the matter. The advice was that
    "the application should be supported by voluminous material —the application should be biased technically—the application should be made as soon as possible."
    It was also stated that the application should stress the peaceful use of material.
    I agree that all Governments should promote exports. I was vociferous in defending the European fighter programme. There is, however, a difference between co-operating with regimes which have some semblance of democratic processes and a tradition of friendship with this country, and co-operating with a regime such as Saddam Hussein's. I could quote many other interesting documents, but the rigidly imposed 10-minute rule forces me to skip them. I hoped to be called earlier.
    I come now to the link between the Government and Customs and Excise in this sad affair. I have a letter from

    689
    the principal private secretary, Department of Trade and Industry, to the chairman of Customs and Excise allowing him to go ahead and start the investigation, but adding:
    "You assured me that the visit"
    to the Matrix Churchill premises
    "would be used for fact finding only, and no action would be taken as a result without consulting Ministers."
    It is pretty clear that the Government had a strong handle on the way in which, and the extent to which, Customs and Excise was to conduct its investigation. However, it went ahead, and the rest took place after the ceasefire and the easing up of policy, with the continuing connivance and co-operation of Ministers. One man—Gore-Booth—stood out against it. I think that he should be complimented, and I name him for that reason.
    I will not be drawn into saying whether the affair had any electoral significance. The period that it covered made it sub judice. After the election, however, it came to trial. What I find most puzzling is how it was ever allowed to come to trial. It is clear that the public interest immunity certificates were rushed through. Some, like the Home Secretary, may have acted in ignorance of what was in them; some may have read them but not understood their significance; some, like the President of the Board of Trade—and many have complimented him on his approach—may have acted with great reluctance. But that sort of Pontius Pilate attitude—"We will leave it to the good judge to decide; that is his job, is it not?"—is not good enough.
    In the 1950s, it was ruled that such certificates should not be used in criminal cases. It is clear from a case in Reading, which has not been mentioned so far, that the mere threat of such a document being issued is sometimes sufficient for a judge to back off, a plea of guilty to be entered and a suspended sentence to be imposed. I think that that should be looked at.
    What have the Government achieved? Ministers have behaved with cowardice and irresponsibility; at best, they have hidden behind a judge. The evidence came out in court only because—against the advice of counsel for the other two defendants—Geoffrey Robertson sued to have it brought out. He was able to obtain it only by waiving his right to be silent during the defence's case. That is how difficult it was—and now Ministers are saying that they were happy to sign a statement that the judge would be willing to bring them out if he thought it relevant. That meant that Paul Henderson had to reveal in court the full extent of his links with MI6. Had that not happened, the public interest immunity notices would have been conducive to the perversion of the normal course of justice. That is how severe the charge was, and there is no way in which anyone involved can dodge it.
    There is now a complete lack of trust between civil servants and Ministers, and between MI6 and industry. Above all, several crucial issues have to be faced, especially with regard to the three defendants. One of them, and somebody else who is not a co-defendant but who has been named, have had their livelihoods severely prejudiced. Moreover, their very security has been put at risk.
    The Government say that the judge obtained the information, but how did he obtain it? He obtained it only by the Government having revealed the full extent, in advance of the defence's case, of the MI6 links. Therefore, we have to ask the Government what they intend to do to
    690
    protect those gentlemen whose lives as well as livelihoods they have so wantonly exposed. In addition, how do the Government intend to restore the basis upon which they can regain their livelihoods?
    It is sad for me to have to make these charges in the House. I did not think that members of this Government, some of whom we had respected, would stoop so low to protect their own necks. I do not believe that there is any solution other than their resignation, to clear the good name of the House and of British justice.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Rod Richards: I intend to refer to the international context of the issue—the worldwide desire to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
    Since the second world war, one of the greatest dangers of world peace has been the very real risk that certain third-world countries would acquire nuclear technology and develop nuclear weapons. Most recently, the Gulf war reminded us that nuclear weapons in the wrong hands might have led to a global disaster. The successful prosecution of that war by conventional means alone was also a timely reminder of the importance of monitoring closely attempts by third-world countries to become nuclear powers, in contravention of the non-proliferation treaty.
    Almost invariably, the countries that have been most active in attempting to acquire a nuclear capability have been countries in the world's political hot spots. Some of their leaders have been, at best, aggressive; sometimes they have been unstable and likely to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively.
    Under successive British Governments during the past 20 to 30 years, the intelligence community has pursued a consistent policy of monitoring attempts by third-world countries to develop and produce a nuclear capability. Under successive British Governments, the intelligence community, whenever and wherever possible, has sought also to frustrate attempts by non-nuclear powers to become nuclear.
    In order to be in a position to arrest the progress of nuclear aspirants, it is surely necessary to gain intelligence access to the procurement process of the countries involved. One of the means by which such access might be achieved is in the grey area on the fringes of official guidelines where there is some flexibility in interpretation, particularly when certain types of components, or tools, or equipment have peaceful nuclear uses, or non-nuclear uses.
    The practice for many years has been to exploit, where feasible and where Government policy allows, some of the opportunities that arise when British companies, and companies in other countries, are in a position to export goods that are readily available in many parts of the world but which have dual use. There are foreign powers that have set up front companies in many parts of the world, whose sole purpose has been to acquire components and equipment to enhance their nuclear weapons programme.
    There are those, I am sure, on the Opposition Benches who would say that if such companies are discovered in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, they should be exposed and closed. That is a naive view of the world. Were such action to be standard procedure, the offending Government would merely set up new front organisations. The

    691
    intelligence community would then have the additional task of locating and penetrating them anew. In the meantime, our ability to monitor and frustrate the activities of which I speak would be correspondingly diminished and the threat to world peace correspondingly increased.
    In my experience under both the last Labour Administration and the first Administration of this Conservative Government, the intelligence community of this country, together with its intelligence allies, worked diligently in pursuit of what must be a worthwhile goal —the prevention of local nuclear conflict. They achieved that with great skill. Such preventive action was possible only because the intelligence community under Governments of both political persuasions were able to penetrate authorised trade to certain foreign countries and exercise thereby some control over their activities and progress. Had the practice been discontinued, many countries that do not now have a nuclear capability would probably have become nuclear powers, with possibly catastrophic consequences.
    In my view, the Labour party's actions in recent weeks have damaged significantly the prospects for future success in that area. The most spectacular operation to stifle nuclear proliferation was undertaken by the Israeli air force in 1981, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) mentioned, when it destroyed Iraq's experimental nuclear reactor at Osirak, which was almost certainly intended as a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.
    Early attempts by Iraq and others to develop a nuclear capability were closely monitored by intelligence communities in all parts of the world during the 1970s and 1980s. We now hear, however, from the Labour party that such activity in recent years is tantamount to connivance by Ministers in this Government—connivance by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not accept that for one moment; nor should the Labour party insist upon pursuing it, because these activities also took place in 1978 and 1979.
    At that time, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was the Secretary of State for Trade in the then Labour Government. If the Labour party believes that what Ministers on the Treasury Bench have done is wrong, according to their logic so too were the actions of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. We have heard nothing but sanctimonious cant from the Labour party during the debate. While it is universally recognised and accepted that the Labour party has a duty to oppose the Government, what it is doing today and what it has been doing during the last few weeks amounts to opposing and undermining this country and its attempts to maintain world peace.
    8.48 pm
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). I wondered for a moment, however, what it had to do with the subject matter of the debate. I thought that the debate was about a simple issue, and it must be about a simple issue. It is not about whether arms were sold. We all know that they were. It is about the rights of the individual as against the rights of the state. We lose sight of that fact at our peril in a democracy.
    692
    We have to remember what has happened in the case of Matrix Churchill. I declare an interest as a practising barrister and as the senior partner for many years in Mr. Henderson's defence firm. Three men went on trial. The state held certain papers that were germane and material to their defence. Ministers were asked to sign a public interest immunity certificate, and they did so.
    It is not for me to say who knew what, because that does not concern me and it will come out during the inquiry of Lord Justice Scott, a man of immense integrity; what is important is the risk that society ran, because this was not the first trial. A judge at Reading—His Honour Judge Spence—was served with a similar certificate in February, when four men went on trial. I do not know the details of the case, but, interestingly, the certificate was upheld. The then Attorney-General, who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, must presumably have given some advice either to Ministers or the court and counsel in the case.
    Did that judge have the same papers as His Honour Judge Smedley when he reviewed the certificates? His Honour Judge Smedley struck a blow for freedom because he began to tear back the veil of secrecy, and justice was done. I appreciate that sometimes the public interest must be taken into account.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the case that he mentioned at Reading was not the first step along a sordid route, because three gentleman from Forgemasters were taken to a police station in my constituency on the day that the Select Committee was due to commence its investigation? Does he agree that Lord Justice Scott may consider the supergun aspects of the affair?
    Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It was interesting that no prosecution was brought over the Rawmarsh incident.
    I do not know what happened at Reading, but three men received prison sentences, albeit suspended, and, as is said in the trade, certain matters were raised between the parties.
    Is it right in a democracy that a man should go on trial when documents are available that may lead to his acquittal? The answer is no. In the Court of Appeal recently, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with other judges, ruled in the Ward case on the question of disclosure. Under English law, public interest immunity certificates were not meant to be involved in criminal trials: civil trials involving property, yes, but criminal trials, no. Why have they suddenly begun to emerge in criminal trials?
    If the Attorney-General and the Government believe that allowing a man a fair trial with full disclosure will be harmful to the public interest and a document is held that could lead to this acquittal but which in their considered opinion should not be disclosed, a simple step is available: the Attorney-General intervenes and issues a nolle prosequi. I agree with the Attorney-General's interpretation of his role, but his proper role is to ask for the certificate and to deliver the documents to the judge. If the judge concludes that the documents should be disclosed, they are disclosed; otherwise he issues nolle prosequi; in other words, stop the prosecution.
    That is how the judge protects the rights of the individual, and it is the right of the individual in a criminal trial to expect that any document or matter germane and

    693
    material to his defence to be disclosed. If that is swept away, justice is destroyed and no democracy is entitled to send a single innocent man or woman knowingly to prison.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the President of the Board of Trade said that he was not entitled to waive his signature on the certificate of public interest immunity, he was being somewhat disingenuous, because in 1989 Lord Bingham said that in exceptional circumstances Ministers could refuse to sign such certificates and allow documents to be produced? Surely in a case where someone was innocent that would be exceptional. In addition, because there is no statutory form of public interest immunity certificate, the Secretary of State could have included a clause in the form alerting the judge to the fact that these men were innocent.
    Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes the point that I was going to make.
    There are three lessons to be learned: first, that the individual is paramount in our consideration; secondly, that the issue of disclosure in criminal trials must be considered, particularly for sensitive matters; and, thirdly, that the Attorney-General must lay down proper guidelines or indicate to the judiciary that a judge must examine the document and that, having done so, it is for him to decide whether to disclose. Above all, the Attorney-General must remember that when an individual is at risk but documents are available to clear him or her, the Attorney-General must issue a nolle prosequi.
    I thought that the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 centralised the prosecution service—in other words, one Attorney-General, one Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown prosecution service. I have been in the trade long enough to know about prosecutions brought by the Inland Revenue, the Department of Trade and Industry and Customs and Excise, but this case must tell us that when other bodies prosecute the Attorney-General and the Director must exercise the same degree of control over their prosecutions as they do over the Crown prosecution service. It seems ludicrous that the Commissioners for Customs and Excise can go their own way.
    Let us learn some lessons from this, but let us never forget that the individual is more important than the state.
    8.57 pm
    Mr. John Butcher: the Matrix Churchill company is in the centre of my constituency. One of its directors, Mr. Paul Henderson, is my constituent. So the House would expect me to speak for those who have not been mentioned today, the truly forgotten people in this debate: the 600 highly skilled men who used to work for Matrix Churchill and who now contemplate the shell of a building and a company, the rump of which now manufactures only a fraction of the output which Matrix Churchill produced so successfully in recent years.
    I should like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to answer a question for me. As the Scott inquiry can be given "further and wider terms" if need be, can it be widened to include compensation, not just for the directors but for the work force, if it can be shown that the actions of Government
    694
    agencies contributed to the downfall of the company? I do not suggest that I will judge the answer to that question today, but before I conclude I should like to give my right hon. and learned Friend some information which may help him to decide whether he can undertake to widen the inquiry to include aspects of compensation.
    It may help the House if I provide a potted history of the company. Those of us who take an interest in the health of manufacturing industry, and in the machine tool industry in particular, should be aware that the company's past reads like a roll call of the very best of British machine-tool-making companies. TI Churchill took over Alfred Herbert in 1983. If ever there was an aristocracy among skilled workers in this country, and in Coventry, it was to be found at Alfred Herbert, a company which produced generations of bright, gifted engineers whose skills were the envy of the world. The company was brigaded in with Matrix and Coventry Tool and Gauge to complete the amalgamation of a prodigious and prestigious portfolio of famous machine tool manufacturers' names.
    Matrix Churchill was formed in 1987 when TMG, with its Iraqi shareholding, bought the company for £6·5 million. Many hon. Members today have spoken of the "crown jewels" in the context of a legal case. I say that when TMG bought the company for £6·5 million it bought the crown jewels of the British machine tool industry. All that has been thrown away in the course of the past 12 months.
    From the mid-1950s onwards, the company developed CNC lathes, which benefited from an enlightened development policy on the part of a management team, including some who have been mentioned today, led by Paul Henderson. They were popular on the shop floor, they had the respect of their work force, and they invested blood, sweat, tears and money in the company. They produced a range of automated machining centres for CNC lathes, manufacturing systems and engineering products which boded well for the future.
    Even without an Iraqi order book, the company would have been likely to have a good future. Some of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members have asserted that there may have been collusion between the security services, the DTI, other Whitehall agencies and Customs and Excise. If the results of the work of various Government agencies are to be objectively assessed, the chaos produced by the lack of interaction between them certainly contributed to the redundancies of up to 600 people who once had jobs in my constituency and other parts of Coventry.
    I should like to draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the details of one period in the company's history. In the autumn of 1990 the management, together with British financial backers, attempted to buy out the Iraqi shareholding. On 21 September 1990, the directors of the company cleared a statement with the DTI which read as follows:
    "The directors are more confident that the deal to buy out the Iraqi financial interest will succeed … At a meeting this week, the Department of Trade and Industry recognised our efforts and indicated that a speedy resolution of our plans to acquire 100 per cent. equity in the business would be welcomed."
    Within days of the statement, the directors were arrested as a result of Customs and Excise investigations and detained in custody—an overnight experience that none of them will forget. The deal of which the DTI had

    695
    been advised—the DTI had helped them to clear their press statement—was aborted almost immediately. Financial backers will always run when something like this comes to light, and that is just what they did: the financial institutions ran away.
    Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence consider the length and manner of the Customs and Excise inquiry to assess whether it may have, been a contributory factor to the demise of the company as we knew it at that time? To give my right hon. and learned Friend a flavour of what happened, when the investigators went in in September 1990—a very sensitive time, given the state of the negotiations on the buy-out —they left the premises, waved airily and said, "See you in December." That does not strike me as a vigorous, clinical and urgent investigation. That length of time and the overlap with the negotiations on the buy-out may have caused the company insuperable problems.
    Customs and Excise have their own rules and they are objective and impartial. They must work to rules of evidence. But they also have draconian powers, some of which would be envied by the fraud squad. Can the terms of reference of the inquiry be widened to assess whether the investigations—albeit by an independent agency, but none the less a Government agency—prejudiced the successful rescue of that company? If they did, does the question of compensation arise not just for my constituent, Paul Henderson, but also for the 600 men who were pushed on to the scrap heap after having been the aristocrats of the machine tool industry?
    We have not heard enough today about the Opposition's much-vaunted concern for the manufacturing sector. Opposition Members have been hunting for a scalp, but they may not get one. The inquiry will look into all that. However, someone somewhere must remember those 600 forgotten people in the aftermath of this sad and sorry affair.
    9.6 pm
    Mr. Llew Smith: I am most grateful to be called to speak in this debate, because I possess some detailed information about secret armament deals by British companies, and I will refer to those documents in my speech. Since May, I have tried to establish the accuracy of some of the documents by tabling a series of parliamentary questions. About 30 of them have been blocked by the Table Office for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they are repetitious or that I was fishing for facts.
    I plead guilty to both charges, because I believe that fishing for facts is a right and proper role for hon. Members. Indeed, that is what the debate is about. I do not complain about the Table Office, but about the rules under which it is expected to operate. Surely it is not in the interests of Parliament that hon. Members are unable to establish the facts.
    British nuclear assistance to Iraq has a long vintage. For example, in May 1957 the House was told that he United Kingdom had contributed £30,000 to the Baghdad pact nuclear centre. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have been at pains to tell the House that the 1985 embargo assistance to Iraq was upheld. At the same time, Ministers have consistently refused to answer to the House
    696
    about specifics of military equipment sales and arms deals with Iraq or other military dictatorships, such as Indonesia.
    Of the many instances of ministerial shyness in respect of telling Parliament the full facts about defence exports —as Ministers call them—let me just cite two. On 21 November 1986, the year after the guidelines on exports to Iraq were announced to the House, when asked about specific sales of military, industrial and chemical equipment to Iraq and Iran since 1981, the Ministry of Defence, through the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, stated:
    "It has been the consistent policy of this and previous Administrations not to reveal details of specific defence exports to other countries."—[Official Report, 21 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 355.]
    In April 1989, on the eve of the evil Baghdad arms fair which was bloated with British companies, the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, told my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), when asked if there had been any change in the current policy of prohibiting the export to Iraq of weapons that could enhance its offensive capability:
    "The Government have not changed their policy on defence sales to Iraq. Applications for export licences continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, according to the guidelines.—[Official Report, 21 April 1989; Vol. 151. c. 311.]
    Baroness Thatcher may have been disingenuous in that reply, in the light of the revelations now made in public about the Matrix Churchill affair, yet the matter is graver still. Not only were Government Departments conniving in secret to circumvent their own export guidelines, but, according to information brought to my attention and mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), Mr. Frank Machon strongly suggests that the MOD in particular knowingly dealt with a front company to ensure that ammunition, military fuses, shells and other armaments were exported to Iraq and Iran, notwithstanding successive assurances by Ministers in the House that no such sales were happening.
    I know that the charges that I am about to place on the record are grave, but I believe them to be true and accurate. I want to add to and support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston. The case involves a company called Allivane International Ltd. which became Aerotechnologies before it went bust in 1988. It involves another apparent company called Allivane International Group.
    I say "apparent company" advisedly, because the letter from Companies house in Cardiff, dated 19 August 1991, stated that no such company is registered. Information given to me by Mr. Frank Machon indicates that Allivane International Group was created with the knowledge and probable connivance of the MOD as the shadow company for Allivane International Ltd.
    Is it not fair to say that, if someone wanted secretly to import arms from this country using a company such as Allivane International Group, which does not need to be registered at Companies house, that would be an obvious method, because its activities are difficult to trace? Allivane International Group and Allivane International Ltd. have the same company number. According to BCCI, their affairs were dealt with by the very same receiver.
    In October, I asked the MOD what it knew about Allivane. I was given four addresses in a letter dated 27 October, and the Minister added an interesting disclaimer.

    697
    I want to demonstrate to the House that, setting aside the clear-cut case of Matrix Churchill, there is now ample evidence against what the Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday when he said:
    "The suggestion that Ministers misled the House"—
    over arms deals to Iraq, Iran and elsewhere—
    "is a serious and scurrilous charge and has no basis whatsoever in fact."—[Official Report, 17 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 136.]
    In fact, last Thursday, the Prime Minister suggested also that previous charges laid upon the Government over their conduct regarding BCCI were also "utterly unfounded".
    Using documents provided to me by Mr. Frank Machon on the Allivane affair—documents also forwarded to 10 Downing street over the past few years by Mr. Machon—I want to show the House not only that arms and other military equipment were exported to Iraq and Iran since the mid-1980s, despite the export ban, but that those arrangements were undertaken with the financial backing of the BCCI, in conjunction with the discredited Space Research Corporation, run in Belgium by Dr. Gerald Bull, builder of the supergun.
    One document, for example, in my possession shows that, on 20 May 1987, BCCI was prepared to ensure the sale of 50,000 sets of fuses by Allivane International Group. The fuses for artillery shells were bound for the middle east, to be shipped via dealers in Portugal. Evidence suggests that Royal Ordnance was also involved, within months of its sale to British Aerospace early in 1987. The Independent further claims that Allivane held several accounts with BCCI. What do the Government know of that?
    Documents in my possession also show the Allivane International Group's connection with the Space Research Corporation. A letter from Stuart Blackledge of SRC to Allivane's company chairman, Terry Byrnes Junior, on 3 August 1987, shows an order for mark 3 155 mm Elite shells by SRC to Allivane International Ltd. The contract was worth in the region of £965 million, according to another informant of mine.
    In a written reply, I was told by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that the Ministry had no record of any contract between the Army's logistic executive and Allivane for the export of military equipment since 1987.
    One contract was signed in 1988 for short-term storage of ammunition in Ministry of Defence facilities, which was subsequently exported for the company. On 7 September, The Independent gave details of how those exports were being used as a cover for an illegal consignment of arms, which was ultimately destined for Iran.
    I have given the House merely a fraction of the information that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston have been sent on breaches of military sales embargos to Iraq and Iran.
    Mr. Machon wrote to the Prime Minister in January 1991 with information, and on 31 January 1991 the Prime Minister told Parliament:
    "for some considerable time we have not supplied arms to Iraq".—[Official Report, 31 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 1102]
    Two days before that, Machon had written to the Prime Minister:
    "I have read arid listened to many statements made in newspapers and by politicians of all parties regarding the supply of armaments and ammunitions to Iraq being carried out by every country except Great Britain.
    698
    What does alarm me most of all is that Britain has been supplying Iraq and creating a funnel through which every arms manufacturing country, even Eastern bloc countries, has had the facility made 'available' to them to complete the shipment to the Gulf through Britain since 1983 to 1990."
    That should have concerned every one of us and our Prime Minister, who should have acted on that and other information which was sent to 10 Downing street during the past few years.
    Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the speech by the President of the Board of Trade, I raised a point of order with you that he was quoting from official papers, and you said that they were not state papers. I have secured the words of the Speaker when she ruled on the matter. She said:
    "Where a Member of the Opposition or any Back Bench Member refers to an official document, they do not have to lay it on the Table as a Minister has."
    I think that I am right in saying that that requires further consideration. Can you assure me that the Speaker will look into the matter, in the light of my point of order?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that Madam Speaker has indicated her readiness to investigate the precise nature of the document that has been quoted.
    9.17 pm
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is a legitimate subject for political argument whether or not this country should trade with tyrants, whether we should do away with our arms industry or our machine tools industry when they could be used to make armaments, whether we should put thousands of people out of work, and whether we should let our competitors take all our markets. Those subjects have been argued from Government to Government for many years, and they will continue.
    It is also a legitimate matter for political discussion whether those hon. Members who seek to criticise a policy when they are in opposition upheld the same policy when they were in power, whether they objected to the policy that the Government are pursuing in the years that mattered and whether they are making mischief because they have no sensible policies of their own and are merely being hypocritical, as they were over their arms trade with Argentina and other unpleasant regimes. Those are double standards, and they are a legitimate subject for political debate.
    However, in one of the great Parliaments of the world, it ought not to be legitimate political debate to talk nonsense, in ignorance of the facts, and to persist in talking nonsense when those facts are explained.
    First, it is nonsense to say that public interest certificates were used as a cover-up in an attempt to stop the truth being used to acquit innocent men, as the hon. Member for Livingstone (Mr. Cook) has said repeatedly. The fact is that public interest certificates have, and had in this case, precisely the opposite effect. They brought to the notice of the defence and of the judge the existence of documents which might have helped the defence, and which it could not have known about. The prosecution, when it knew of the relevance of the documents to the defence case, brought them to its attention and that of the court. The court then ruled that the documents should be revealed, and the trial continued.
    The documents were not the end of the matter; rather it was Alan Clark's evidence which, as I understand it, was

    699
    considered capable of leaving the defence with the belief that it had his support in breaking the regulations. That is why the defence barristers have said in their letter to The Times:
    "We must have been present in an altogether different court … There was no question of anyone attempting to suppress evidence."
    That is game, set and match so far as the cover-up allegation is concerned, yet the hon. Member for Livingston and his supporters have no compunction in continuing to talk nonsense.
    Secondly, it is utter nonsense to say that Ministers connived at a trial and the risk of imprisonment to the defendants, knowing that the allegation that Matrix Churchill broke the regulations was false. It will be for Lord Justice Scott to decide whether the argument between the Foreign Office and the DTI about the future of the guidelines should have prevented a prosecution, but two facts are beyond argument: first, that the Ministers have to sign —it is their duty under common law—a public interest certificate if security and confidentiality between civil servants and Ministers are involved; secondly, that Foreign Office Ministers and DTI Ministers have no power or control over prosecutions.
    The strength of our reputation as a decent society is precisely based on the fact that the prosecuting authorities and the judicial authorities are not influenced by political convenience. Customs and Excise was the prosecution; it saw all the relevant documents and statements. [Interruption.] I notice that Opposition Members are not even bothering to listen.
    Customs and Excise could have said no to a prosecution if it had known that the Minister had been economical with the actualité. There was a case against Matrix Churchill until Alan Clark's evidence was heard. That is the fact of the matter, and allegations that Ministers launched, or could have stopped, the prosecution, in the knowledge that what Alan Clark had said to them was false, is nonsense peddled by the hon. Member for Livingston and his supporters.
    As Simon Jenkins said in The Times of last week of the hon. Member for Livingston:
    "I have watched him in the past week hyper-ventilating."
    For my part, I would rather have these matters sorted out by common sense, by the integrity of my right hon. Friends and by the independence of Lord Justice Scott than leave it to the hyper-ventilating activity of the hon. Member for Livingston.
    9.22 pm
    Dr. David Clark: As I waded through 500-odd pages of evidence submitted to the court and I read the interactions between various Departments and the explanations of Ministers and civil servants, a couplet by Sir Walter Scott kept coming back to me,
    "O what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!"
    I came to the firm conclusion that that would be a suitable epitaph for the Government.
    For many, the debate merely represents the culmination of two weeks' intense activity following the collapse of the Matrix Churchill court case. As we know, however, the Government's involvement in the sale of defence equipment to Iraq has been of concern to Opposition Members for more than five years. Literally question upon question has been tabled to Ministers, only to be met, time and time again, with evasive and misleading answers.
    700
    Colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) have sought, time and again, to bring out the truth.
    My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), has repeatedly tried to ascertain what was going on, but to no avail. We now know why. What is so tragic is that, while those hon. Members were plying Ministers with questions and trying to get to the truth of the matter, the Government were conspiring to allow the export of machinery to be used to build up the military arsenal of the dictator, Saddam Hussein, some of which would be used against British service men fighting to liberate Kuwait. For many of us, such duplicity is unforgiveable.
    Mr. Robathan: Exactly what equipment made by Matrix Churchill machine tools was used against British servicemen in the Gulf last year?
    Dr. Clark: That is an interesting question and I thank the hon. Gentleman, who I know was in the Gulf. As he knows, we still have no explanation about how certain Tornados were shot down. It was certainly done with anti-aircraft fire. We do not know where shells from tanks used against British service men came from. They probably came from equipment provided by Matrix Churchill. I shall pursue that matter later.
    It is interesting that, time and again, Ministers have professed their innocence and the President of the Board of Trade has done so again today. The tragedy is that hardly anyone believes it. The President will have seen the publication in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph showing that 83 per cent. of people questioned did not believe that the Government were telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    We do not make those serious allegations against the Government lightly. We feel fully justified in doing so on account of the Government's behaviour in the sale of that arms-making equipment to Iraq in recent years. This afternoon we have repeatedly heard from hon. Members who felt that they had been misled by Ministers over the years. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), at his most clinical this afternoon, provided forensic analysis proving the allegation beyond all doubt.
    The Labour party is still dissatisfied with the President's explanation about the public interest immunity certificates. Although Ministers may have been advised that they had to sign them, that is not the whole picture. As the Secretary of State for Defence is winding up the debate tonight, I put the same question to him as was put to the President. Did he know that one of the three defendants had helped the Government? If he had known, would he have signed the document? I doubt whether he would have signed it. I think that he would have gone to the Attorney-General and explained the position. Will he tell the House whether he knew of the involvement of one of the defendants in the case?
    To compound those two charges, we question the morality of Ministers who ordered British troops into action in Desert Storm to face an Iraqi army that was partly equipped through the Government's policy. We regard that as a hypocritical policy, which is why we felt fully justified in tabling our strong motion.
    Now that the Government's facade has been peeled away with the publication of those documents in the past

    701
    two weeks, we can see that the inside is rotting. The rot concerns not merely one Government Department but affects the whole machinery of government, and we look forward to Lord Justice Scott's report.
    Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Clark: No, because I gave away much of my time to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).
    We were surprised to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that, if Lord Justice Scott felt it appropriate, a tribunal could be held under the 1921 Act, as the Opposition requested. If that is so, why did not the Government come clean at the beginning? Why did not they offer us that at the beginning and why were not the terms of reference drawn up in consultation with the leaders of the Opposition? That would have given extra credibility to the inquiry. What we do not want is a ministerial inquiry headed by a judicial figure. We want a tribunal, and we hope that that will be the outcome, as the President this afternoon intimated would be possible. Perhaps we can be given a further assurance on that.
    One of the arguments that has appeared in the documents and the debate has involved the issue of guidelines. We are all agreed that there were guidelines in 1985, announced by the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe. I had assumed that everyone also accepted that those guidelines were amended following the cessation of hostilities between Iraq and Iran. I was completely surprised to hear the President say today that that was not the case. What was said today flies in the face of the evidence in the documents.
    Everyone accepts that there were changes made at the beginning of 1990, but they were not admitted to Parliament. Why the Government misled hon. Members is beyond me. We wonder what they are ashamed about. I find it incredible that the previous Prime Minister, on 21 April 1989, said that the Government had not changed their policy. That was repeated as recently as 17 February this year, when the current Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pretending that the 1988 changes had not been made and the 1985 guidelines were "enforced carefully and strictly."
    When we start delving into the matter and trying to discover which Ministers knew what, we come up with incredible answers. Perhaps the most incredible of them was the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked when it was first brought to the Secretary of State's attention that Matrix Churchill goods were used for military purposes in Iraq. The Secretary of State replied that it came to his attention in September 1992. Where has the Secretary of State been all these years? I know that he is only following the lead of the Prime Minister, who goes one better.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) tabled a question asking the Prime Minister when he was first informed that Matrix Churchill was involved in the export of machine tools to Iraq. The Prime Minister replied today that he would reply to my hon.
    702
    Friend shortly. When did the Prime Minister know? Surely the Prime Minister knows when he was first involved—why cannot he give an answer to hon. Members?
    The truth is that the Government are all over the place on the guidelines. It has become clear that they changed the guidelines, breached them and, on occasion, ignored them. A Foreign Office memo of 5 January 1988 provides evidence of that. It states that, towards the end of 1987, the Government
    "obtained intelligence, thought by the DIS to be reliable, that the lathes are to go to set up munitions factories to produce missiles and shells in large quantities."
    Therefore, the Government are saying that licences had been given for equipment to go to Iraq that they knew was to be used to make munitions. They then said that
    "had this information been available at the time",
    they
    "would have advised the IDC that the military assessment was that the use of the lathes for this purpose would constitute a significant enhancement in Iraq's capability to prolong the conflict with Iran."
    In spite of knowing all that, the Government continued to allow licences to be granted to the company to export the same lathes to Iraq.
    Mr. Richards rose—
    Dr. Clark: I shall not give way.
    We argue that the House has been misled by the Government in that respect. We also feel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, that Ministers have been naive in the extreme. I was staggered to see that on 12 March 1991 the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan:
    "It is extremely unlikely that any United Kingdom defence equipment could have enhanced the capability of the Iraqi arms industry to any significant degree."—[Official Report, 12 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 440.]
    I ask the question again: where have Ministers been? What have they been reading? Do they not read the reports of their officials, who have been telling them time and again that such equipment can and did enhance the strength of the Iraqi army?
    We know that the lathes were not sent for general commercial purposes. Instead, they were set up and established to manufacture shells and fuses. We know that there were trial runs at Coventry to ensure that they would do the job. Yet Ministers have repeatedly assumed that there was no threat to the United Kingdom military by rearming Saddam Hussein's army.
    The Government ignored and changed their guidelines as they saw fit. Things come to a head, however, when we move to the weeks leading up to the Gulf war. During those weeks, the Government were considering amending the regulations yet again. The Foreign Secretary chaired a Cabinet Committee that considered the matter. We find it unforgivable that, while the intelligence services were advising the Government that there was a build-up of Iraqi troops on the border with Kuwait and drawing attention to what Saddam Hussein was saying about the oilfields to the north of Kuwait—they were reporting loyally that there was a likelihood of a military invasion by Iraq of Kuwait and saying at the same time that British troops might have to go and fight for the liberation of Kuwait —the Government were involved throughout in actively promoting sales of arms-making equipment to Iraq. We find such duplicity unforgivable.

    703
    I move on to the Scud missiles. It was only in New York this week that the right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) heard the Swedish ambassador say that it was eastern hardware that was delivered to Iraq but western technology that allowed the Iraqis to deliver that hardware. As we watched television and saw Scud missiles killing innocent people in the middle east, I do not think that any of us thought that the missiles had had their delivery enhanced by the work of lathes that had been produced in the United Kingdom. We should be ashamed of that. We should be even more ashamed of the way in which this country encouraged Saddam Hussein to develop his nuclear capability.
    In February 1989, a Foreign Office memo stated that Iraq was attempting to
    "obtain equipment for the development of gas centrifuge technology for uranium enrichment. This is a serious development which confirms our long-held suspicion that Iraq, although a party to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, has ambitions to develop a programme for itself."
    In March 1989, three export licences were granted by the Government to Matrix Churchill to supply machine tools to Iraq. Despite public approval, there was concern behind the scenes that the machines could be used
    "for the development of nuclear weapons munitions manufacture or even uranium enrichment."
    Those words appeared in the Foreign Office memorandum. Part of the justification for the approval was the famous quote from the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that screwdrivers were also required to produce hydrogen bombs. How facile, yet how revealing in many ways.
    Since the United Nations has been in Iraq and carrying out investigations, the organisation says that we were involved. In its 11th report, it said:
    "the Iraqi side stated that the small components for the centrifuge prototype were manufactured outside Iraq by three companies"—
    one of which was Matrix Churchill. Therefore, we have the proof. In its 12th report, the United Nations again refers to the high precision milling and turning machines supplied by Matrix Churchill.
    Not only was Britain supplying conventional machinery to the Iraqis, it was supplying machinery that would allow them to develop their nuclear capability. I wonder whether that fits in with the Government policy on nuclear non-proliferation.
    The whole sorry fiasco shows that the Government knowingly and, at times, positively encouraged the export of equipment that could be used to improve Iraq's military capability—and it was used for just that. When talking about how the Government have got the signals wrong in relation to other countries, we can even ask what signal was given to the Iraqis and how much we contributed to their confidence when they decided to invade Kuwait. They received covert assistance from the British Government.
    Conservative Members may not appreciate how deeply the country feels about the matter. I shall quote a letter from a young boy—Marcus Roberts, aged 11, from Edinburgh—who won the best contribution for the "Children In Need" appeal last Friday on the "PM" radio programme. He wrote:
    704
    "Just before armistice day this year it was disclosed that Matrix Churchill and other companies had been supplying Saddam Hussein with machine tools. These were used to construct weapons including shells and missiles right up to two weeks before the invasion of Kuwait."
    He continued with a sentence that I shall not repeat in the House because I do not think it called for. However, I make the point that that is the view of a young boy. It is also the view of the majority of people in this country. It is certainly the view of the Opposition.
    The President of the Board of Trade said today that the trouble with the Labour party was that it had been out of office for too long. The trouble with the Government is that they have been in office for too long—and that is why they are morally corrupt.
    9.42 pm
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): In view of all the sanctimonious polemic that we have heard in the debate, I wish to comment on the careful and constructive speeches made by some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) pointed out the dangers of taking isolated remarks and drawing general conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) pointed to the Opposition's double standards—they oppose arms sales generally while lobbying Ministers for arms sales if they think that they will benefit employment in their constituencies.
    I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) on his remarks about the dangers of nuclear proliferation. To my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), I say that the terms of reference of the inquiry are a matter for Lord Justice Scott who, if he wants them extended, will put that request to the Government.
    The Opposition Front Bench spokesmen would have us believe that they are simple seekers after the truth, merely concerned with high principle and integrity in government. The truth is that they are an aspirant kangaroo court. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has all the charity of a Robespierre and all the objectivity of a Senator McCarthy. I concede that he is not a muckraker; he is a muckmaker, because that is the ingredient that he puts before the House.
    The Government are content to allow Lord Justice Scott to investigate all the allegations. Unlike the Opposition, we do not jump to conclusions. However, as the Opposition have made certain charges against the Government, we have to say to them, "This animal is vicious: if attacked, it defends itself." That is what we intend to do.
    The first charge that the hon. Member for Livingston made was that the Government had broken their guidelines by selling arms to Iraq. The Opposition have clearly not paid attention to the fact that the United Kingdom, probably over the past 10 years, has had the most stringent controls over arms sales to Iraq of almost any country, east or west. One need only examine the arms sales that were made to Iraq over those years—not just $8 billion from the former Soviet Union and $579 million from the United States, but almost $3 billion from France. France sold Mirage aircraft, Exocet missiles and weapons which by any stretch of the imagination were lethal weapons, made and designed to kill.

    705
    The issue that we have been asked to consider is whether the British Government, who almost alone among western powers refused to sell any lethal offensive weapons, was in breach of guidelines on equipment which could have a dual use.
    So passionate are Opposition Members in their attempts to smear anyone in sight that not only the Government have been attacked. The hon Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who is an Opposition defence spokesman, last week published a list of 36 British companies, including eminent ones such as Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, Thorn EMI, and many others. The hon. Member maintained that he sought only to assist Lord Justice Scott in his inquiry. He said that it was not meant to be a criticism of the companies. However, the press release that he published is headed
    "Labour list shows full extent of embargo breaches."
    It says:
    "Matrix Churchill represents the tip of the iceberg".
    So no fewer than 36 British companies, including some of the finest companies in the land, are smeared by the Opposition as part of their campaign.
    When the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was asked to say where he obtained his information, he claimed, according to the Financial Times, that the Labour party had gone out of its way to be as rigorous as possible in checking the information used. That sounds impressive until one finds that among the sources were anonymous informants. Those are the tactics of the spiv and the trickster over the ages. It sums up the behaviour of Opposition Members. We refute the charge. We are prepared to allow Lord Justice Scott to inquire into the matter with all the objectivity that is required.
    The second claim in the Opposition's motion is that the Government have misled Parliament and not properly informed Parliament of their policy. Once again, Opposition Members have failed to substantiate their case. They talk about the guidelines, the announcement of guidelines, and whether there where changes in the guidelines. Questions about which statements may or may not have been made, or should have been made, are good debating points, but the fundamental issue is whether there was a sinister motive in any attempt by the Government to withold their policy from Parliament.
    We have been told by the hon. Member for Livingston that Lord Howe initially announced the guidelines, as indeed he did, in October 1985. I do not recall the Opposition suggesting at that time, or at any time since, that there was something sinister in the guidelines being decided within Government in December 1984–10 months earlier. The gap that elapsed between the fixing of the guidelines and the announcement by Lord Howe was not seen as sinister, but Opposition Members are so desperate that they grasp at any straw to substantiate their accusations.
    Perhaps one of the most pernicious accusations that Opposition Members have made is that the Government, by their policy of promoting certain sales of defence equipment to Iraq, contributed to the loss of life or injury of our troops in the Gulf. The Opposition have not provided a scintilla of evidence to support that accusation. I warn them that they are treading on dangerous ground.
    706
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said, the Labour Government did not hesitate to sell arms to Argentina.
    The Leader of the Opposition was a senior member of that Government. Does he accept responsibility for the fact that the Labour Government of which he was a member sold eight ex-RAF Canberras to Argentina? Does he accept responsibility for the Labour Government's approval of the sale of two type 42 destroyers in May 1970? Does he accept responsibility for the sale of two Lynx helicopters in January 1976 or of 42 Sea Dart surface-to-air missiles in November 1969 and August 1978? Does he accept responsibility for the sale of 120 Blowpipe surface-to-air missiles to the Argentines in 1978?
    Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to accept responsibility for any danger to which our troops in the Falklands were exposed having been a direct consequence of the arms sales policy of the Labour Government? If he maintains that it was all right for the Labour Government to sell arms to Argentina without responsibility for the effect that that might have on our troops, how does he justify the double standard that he displays in conection with the Gulf conflict? It is simply an example of the double standard of which the House and the country are thoroughly sick.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the Labour Government did not sell arms only to Argentina? They also sold British-built Puma counter-insurgency helicopters to South Africa at a critical moment, in defiance of a mandatory United Nations ban on such sales. Perhaps the Opposition would like to explain that.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entitled to draw attention to such matters because they are typical of Labour Governments throughout the ages. We remember clearly the busting of oil sanctions on Rhodesia by Labour Ministers which led to the Bingham inquiry. The Opposition prefer to forget that, too. We have had enough double standards from the Labour party.
    One of the most serious charges that the Opposition have chosen to include in their motion is that members of the Government connived at an unjust prosecution, and that four Ministers signed public interest immunity certificates to allow innocent men to go to prison. As one of the four Ministers, I find that accusation deeply offensive, deeply insulting and entirely without foundation. I put one fundamental point to the Opposition and, in particular, to the Leader of the Opposition: it has been implied that public interest immunity certificates were invented by the present Government, but the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that they have been used for the past 50 years and that members of the Government of which he was a prominent member were not slow to use them.
    I will share with the House one excellent example of that. A case in 1977 of Burmah Oil Company v. the Bank of England—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We will not have running commentaries from hon. Members, particularly Front-Bench Members. [Interruption.] Order. I call the House to order. The Minister will be heard in the House.
    Mr. Rifkind: The case occurred during the period of office of the last Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS:

    707
    "It was a civil case."] Whether it was a civil or a criminal case is beside the point. It is well established that the difference between civil and criminal cases is the onus that the judge will use, when the matter comes before him, in deciding where the balance of the public interest lies.
    A report of the case to which I refer states that the Bank of England
    "disclosed quantities of material relevant to the issues, but on government instructions resisted production of 62 documents in its possession and control … Objection to production was taken by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a certificate stating that he had personally read and considered each of the 62 documents listed in the schedule and had formed the opinion that their production would be injurious to the public interest."
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the last Labour Cabinet said:
    "the certificate claimed that the preservation of confidence was in the public interest since if it became known that what was imparted in confidence might be revealed publicly, such information, necessary to policy decisions, would cease to be so readily forthcoming."
    That was an example of a Labour Government using something that Labour now condemns others for using.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State quoted at length a case that he regards as relevant. Will he tell the House how many people in that case were in danger of going to gaol as a consequence of the use of public interest certificates?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman appears to imply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will come to that point, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the idea that public interest certificates are totally unacceptable in criminal cases but totally acceptable when the civil rights of citizens are being determined by a court of law is an example of the absurd absence of logic on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Kaufman rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's other point. There is no way that a Cabinet Minister who has no idea what the defence in a criminal trial might be can come to any judgment as to whether the papers before him are likely to he helpful or harmful to the defence or to the prosecution.
    The judge in the Matrix Churchill case decided to disclose the papers after—not before—he had been told what was the defence case. On that basis, he was able to come to a judgment as to whether they were relevant to the matter in question.
    The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) fails to take into account another point. The judge decided that the papers should be disclosed on 5 October. If those papers made the difference between innocent men going to prison or being released, it is of great significance that, despite the papers being released to the defence on 5 October, the prosecution—far from deciding that the case could not continue—began the case a week later, on 12 October, and continued uninterrupted until 9 November. Only after the evidence of Mr. Alan Clark did the prosecution decide that, because of the nature of his evidence, it would be unreasonable to continue the prosecution.
    There is no substance, directly or indirectly, in implying that Ministers, by doing their duty and signing the public interest certificates, should be held accountable in the way suggested.
    708
    As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade indicated this afternoon, it is significant that not only Her Majesty's Government but counsel for the defence believe that there was no conflict injurious to the defence. They wrote to The Times to say so. Their remarks are worth repeating to any who did not hear them earlier. In their letter published on 13 November, counsel for the defence wrote that reporting elsewhere
    "has caused us to think that we must have been present in an altogether different court."
    They went on:
    "Public interest immunity cannot be waived by either the prosecution or the ministers … There was no question of anyone attempting to suppress evidence."
    The spurious attempts of Opposition Members of various parties to smear the Government and others involved does not bear consideration.
    Over the past few months, and particularly over the past few days, Opposition Members have continued to suggest that any arms sales policy is somehow reprehensible. I recall with irony how, week after week, I have been lobbied by Labour Members trying to ensure that the European fighter aircraft goes ahead in the interests of their constituents. When it looked as though the Kuwaitis were going to sell a tank to the Americans rather than the British, the Opposition spokesman attacked the Government for failing to ensure that it was sold in the right direction. There is humbug; there are double standards; there is an attempt to save face. The Opposition should be hounded for the way in which they have behaved.
    Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 310.

    Division No. 91]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Byers, Stephen

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Caborn, Richard

    Ainger, Nick

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ashton, Joe

    Cann, Jamie

    Austin-Walker, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Barron, Kevin

    Clapham, Michael

    Battle, John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Clelland, David

    Bell, Stuart

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Coffey, Ann

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Cohen, Harry

    Benton, Joe

    Connarty, Michael

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Betts, Clive

    Corbett, Robin

    Blair, Tony

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Blunkett, David

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Boateng, Paul

    Cousins, Jim

    Bradley, Keith

    Cryer, Bob

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Burden, Richard

    Dalyell, Tam

    709

    Darling, Alistair

    Jowell, Tessa

    Davidson, Ian

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Denham,John

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Dewar, Donald

    Leighton, Ron

    Dixon, Don

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dobson, Frank

    Lewis, Terry

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Litherland, Robert

    Dowd, Jim

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Loyden, Eddie

    Eastham, Ken

    McCartney, Ian

    Enright, Derek

    Macdonald, Calum

    Etherington, Bill

    McFall, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McKelvey, William

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Faulds, Andrew

    McLeish, Henry

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Fisher, Mark

    McMaster, Gordon

    Flynn, Paul

    McNamara, Kevin

    Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

    Madden, Max

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mahon, Alice

    Foulkes, George

    Mallon, Seamus

    Fraser, John

    Mandelson, Peter

    Fyfe, Maria

    Marek, Dr John

    Galbraith, Sam

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Galloway, George

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Garrett, John

    Martlew, Eric

    George, Bruce

    Maxton, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Meacher, Michael

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Meale, Alan

    Godsiff, Roger

    Michael, Alun

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Gould, Bryan

    Milburn, Alan

    Graham, Thomas

    Miller, Andrew

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gunnell, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hain, Peter

    Mudie, George

    Hall, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Hanson, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Hardy, Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Hara, Edward

    Henderson, Doug

    Olner, William

    Heppell, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hinchliffe, David

    Parry, Robert

    Hoey, Kate

    Pendry, Tom

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Home Robertson, John

    Pope, Greg

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Prescott, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Purchase, Ken

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Radice, Giles

    Hutton, John

    Randall, Stuart

    Illsley, Eric

    Raynsford, Nick

    Ingram, Adam

    Reid, Dr John

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Jamieson, David

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Janner, Greville

    Rogers, Allan

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Rooney, Terry

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Rowlands, Ted

    710

    Ruddock, Joan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Salmond, Alex

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tipping, Paddy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Turner, Dennis

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Vaz, Keith

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Short, Clare

    Wallace, James

    Simpson, Alan

    Walley, Joan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Soley, Clive

    Wilson, Brian

    Spellar, John

    Winnick, David

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Wise, Audrey

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wray, Jimmy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Stevenson, George

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Stott, Roger

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Straw, Jack

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Chaplin, Mrs Judith

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Churchill, Mr

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clappison, James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Amess, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Ancram, Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Congdon, David

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Conway, Derek

    Ashby, David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkins, Robert

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cran, James

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Day, Stephen

    Bates, Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Batiste, Spencer

    Devlin, Tim

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dicks, Terry

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dover, Den

    Body, Sir Richard

    Duncan, Alan

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Booth, Hartley

    Dunn, Bob

    Boswell, Tim

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Eggar, Tim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Elletson, Harold

    Bowden, Andrew

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Bowis, John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bright, Graham

    Evennett, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Faber, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Burns, Simon

    Forman, Nigel

    Burt, Alistair

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Butcher, John

    Forth, Eric

    Butler, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Butterfill, John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Freeman, Roger

    Carrington, Matthew

    French, Douglas

    Carttiss, Michael

    Fry, Peter

    Cash, William

    Gallie, Phil

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gardiner, Sir George

    711

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Marland, Paul

    Garnier, Edward

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gill, Christopher

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Mates, Michael

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Gorst, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mills, Iain

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Moate, Roger

    Hague, William

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Needham, Richard

    Hannam, Sir John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Norris, Steve

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hendry, Charles

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Page, Richard

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Paice, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Horam, John

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Pawsey, James

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

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pickles, Eric

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Redwood, John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jessel, Toby

    Robathan, Andrew

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Key, Robert

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knapman, Roger

    Sackville, Tom

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knox, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shersby, Michael

    Legg, Barry

    Sims, Roger

    Leigh, Edward

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lidington, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Luff, Peter

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spring, Richard

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sproat, Iain

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Steen, Anthony

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stephen, Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Stern, Michael

    Mans, Keith

    Stewart, Allan

    712

    Streeter, Gary

    Walden, George

    Sumberg, David

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Waller, Gary

    Sykes, John

    Ward, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Watts, John

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Wells, Bowen

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Thomason, Roy

    Whitney, Ray

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Whittingdale, John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thurnham, Peter

    Willetts, David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wilshire, David

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tracey, Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tredinnick, David

    Wood, Timothy

    Trend, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Trotter, Neville

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. David Lightbown.

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House notes that up to August 1990 Her Majesty's Government granted export licences for the supply of goods to Iraq in accordance with guidelines which had as their overriding consideration not to supply any lethal equipment and which also restricted the supply of any defence equipment; recognises that it will be for Lord Justice Scott, under the terms of his inquiry, to consider whether these guidelines were followed; welcomes the Government's decision to give the inquiry wide terms of reference which will enable Lord Justice Scott to examine all of the facts, including the decisions taken by those signing public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case; and deplores the sensationalised attempts of Her Majesty's Opposition to anticipate the inquiry's findings.

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
    Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
      LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
      That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

      FOOD PROTECTION
      That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Lead in Ducks and Geese) (England) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2726), dated 30th October 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be aproved.— [Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

    European Community Documents
    Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.).

    European Community Documents
      COMMON FISHERIES POLICY
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10229/91, relating to the Commons Fisheries Policy, 5337/92, relating to discard practice in Community fisheries, 9019/92, relating to establishment of a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy, and 9135/92, relating to establishment of a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture; supports the Government's aim to contribute actively to the mid-term review of the Common Fisheries Policy; and endorses its aim of upholding ralative stability and pressing for improvements to the Common Fisheries Policy within the framework established by the 1983 Common Fisheries Policy settlement, particularly in reducing discards and strengthening effective enforcement in order to secure a healthy future for the fishing industry.

      SHIPBUILDING (EAST GERMANY)
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6818/92, relating to aid for former East German shipyards; supports the Government's view that the economic and social difficulties in East Germany merited the additional assistance made available to their shipbuilding industry; and notes that the adopted Directive requires the Commission to ensure that the aid shall not affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

    NATIONAL HERITAGE
    That Mr. Patrick Cormack be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Toby Jessel be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Student Housing
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
    10.15 pm
    Mr. John Denham: I should declare an interest and a history at the outset. The history is that I was a student, and for several years I lived in rented houses. I do not claim that my life style was significantly different from or more neighbour-friendly than that of today's students. My interest is in the Outer avenue residents association, a city centre residents association in Southampton, whose members are most concerned about the sudden surge of student housing into their community.
    The recent and rapid expansion of higher education has been matched by a dramatic increase in the number of houses, most of them former family houses, which have become student lets. Between the last academic year and this the number of full-time students in Southampton grew by 1,676. In the same time, the number of purpose-built student places rose by only 283. Even allowing for the fact that some of these full-time students may be living at home, it is likely that more than 200 family houses in Southampton have been lost to student lets since last July.
    Two years ago, the city council estimated that the three-year growth projected in student numbers would cost the city about 750 family homes. That represents a dramatic impact on the housing market of a city such as Southampton. The explosion in student housing is pushing local people out of the housing market and undermining the health and vitality of inner-city communities.
    In my constituency, areas such as Nicholstown, Tennyson road, the Inner avenue area and the Outer avenue area and the Polygon and Fitzhugh areas are all suffering from these extreme pressures. Most of this pressure is felt in the city centre, but there is also significant pressure in a number of suburbs.
    In representing my constituents' interests and those of local residents in the city centre, I do not believe that I am speaking up for a "not in my backyard" attitude. The truth is that, in most of the areas of student housing which are now coming under pressure, there has been student housing for at least 25 years, and no one moving in to those areas in that period would have believed that they were moving in to a socially exclusive part of the city.
    Many of the people who moved in to the inner-city communities, including my family and myself, have positively chosen to live in a part of the city centre which is socially and ethnically diverse. We wanted to live there to benefit from the community life and the educational opportunities that inner-city diversity brings. Many of my constituents and I believe, however, that the balance between sections of the inner-city community is being tipped too far in favour of student accommodation.
    In raising this subject for debate and with regard to a university city which has other higher education institutions, I want to make it quite clear that I am not setting out to be a student basher. I do not intend to blame individual students for the problems facing inner-city areas.
    Individually, the behaviour of those students is typical of the behaviour of young people. However, I must say that I have always been surprised that some of the most intelligent and expensively educated young people find it

    715
    so difficult to remember to put out their rubbish sacks on the correct day, but prefer to leave them out all week in case they miss the refuse collection. Similarly, I admit that there are limits to the spectator interest in the sport of kicking a drink can all the way home from the pub.
    In truth, the problem is not the behaviour of individual students or individual student households. The problem is one of sheer numbers. Large numbers of young people who live for only a short time in an area undermine the cohesiveness of that local community. In a street quite close to my home, about one third of the houses are occupied by students, compared with only two or three just three years ago. There are four or five students in each house.
    We must recognise that in such a street, nearly half the adult population will change every year. Quite simply, if one lives in such a street, one can no longer expect to know one's neighbour. Networks of friendship, co-operation and security, and a common involvement in schools and community and religious organisations, become hard to maintain.
    We cannot overlook the fact that change is taking place very rapidly. In a street in the Fitzhugh area of Southampton, 18 family houses were converted from family homes into student lets between July and October of this year. With that level of concentration of student housing, aspects of behaviour that can be ignored in small doses can become major problems. If one student house in a street has one noisy party a year, that is not a problem. However, if 30 student houses each have one noisy party a year, that is a noisy party every weekend of the academic year, and it is a big problem for neighbours.
    Most students do not have cars, but more of them do. Local people suddenly find in October that they can no longer park outside or near their homes. They have to leave their cars in insecure locations away from their homes, where they are prone to theft and vandalism. They cannot use their pull-ins, often constructed at their own expense, because the entrances are blocked.
    The powers that local authorities have under environmental health legislation do not help. The powers are quite useful to tackle genuinely anti-social tenants and neglectful landlords. However, when people are acting quite reasonably, as in a sense students are by parking their cars, the problem stems from the fact that too many people carry out that activity at the same time in the same place. Environmental health powers are of very limited use in tackling such problems.
    I accept that, individually, many of those problems may seem trivial. However, taken together, they create a deeply damaging loss of confidence and identity in inner-city areas. Quite simply, local people no longer feel that they own or belong to the areas in which they live and in which they have bought their homes.
    The incentive to invest in their homes diminishes. Many of my neighbours and constituents know that the most likely purchaser of their home will be a student landlord —someone who is interested only in the most basic fabric of the building. The purchaser is unlikely to be another family. In the current housing market, the purchaser is almost inevitably going to be a student landlord in such areas.
    Rapidly, and remarkably rapidly in many cases, whole streets become marked by properties that are neglected by landlords or where private owners no longer feel willing to invest in them. That means another turn in the screw of
    716
    decline in inner-city areas. Ultimately, that can and will become a pressure on the public purse. When the decline goes too far, it is back to the local authority for home improvement grants and possibly neighbourhood renewal areas for public money to invest, because private individuals lack the confidence to maintain the standards of their properties. It would be a social tragedy if people who can afford to move out of those communities do so, leaving behind only those who cannot afford to move.
    Before I outline exactly what needs to be done, the question of student housing needs to be linked to HMOs —housing in multiple occupation. They are typically bedsits or converted flatlets let on single tenancies. In a city like Southampton, HMOs house many local young people, and increasingly—and regrettably, because they are quite unsuitable for the purpose—they also house many local young families. The use of HMOs by local people is regrettably an essential feature of the local housing market. The city council has to rely heavily on such properties for housing priority and non-priority homeless families and individuals.
    To some extent, although to a lesser extent at the current time, the spread of HMOs in an inner-city area also gives rise to the type of concerns that I have been talking about. It is obvious to me that no responsible local authority could or should want to obliterate the use of properties for HMOs in the current demand for housing, but it is equally obvious to me that councils need to be able to balance the needs of residential communities—the needs of settled communities—against the different uses of housing. That is difficult enough at the moment, but it is particularly difficult because of the pressures and distortions that are created by the student housing market.
    The only way to deal with that issue is through the planning process, and a sensible planning policy which the city council in Southampton would like to pursue would do several things. It would seek to limit the impact of HMOs and student lets in any one area. It would put a limit of, say, 10 per cent. or perhaps 20 per cent., depending on the nature of the area and local demand, on the maximum number of such conversions and such a loss of use as family houses.
    At the same time, local authorities should be obliged to ensure that within their entire area they were still allowing sufficient HMOs to meet local needs—in other words, spreading the load from high-concentration areas to other areas of the city. Of course, they should use, as Southampton does with its HMO team, their full environmental powers to bring HMOs up to high standards. Within the rented sector, the balance should be shifted towards local people. In part, that should be done by planning controls on properties, and in part by requiring institutes of higher education to provide sufficient housing for their new students.
    The problem, and the reason for requesting this debate, is that, under current planning laws, local authorities cannot pursue such a sensible planning policy. Any attempt to limit the loss of family housing is likely to produce the perverse result of increasing the number of student lets and decreasing the availability of rented housing for local people. Under the Use Classes Order 1987, a group of up to six people living together as one household are classified in exactly the same way as a family residence—as a dwelling house. That order was brought in

    717
    for an entirely different reason. It was about sheltered housing and problems of that sort, but it has had the effect of removing student housing from planning control.
    A property let to six students who share one rent book and share the occasional meal will not require planning permission. Ironically, the same property let to six local young people each with an individual rent book will require planning permission. Of course, landlords know that, so any council that tries to limit the spread of HMOs by planning permissions and planning consents will encourage the same landlords to turn houses into student lets which do not require planning permission—the very reverse of what a sensible local authority would try to achieve.
    Southampton city council has explored those issues in great detail with the regional office of the Department of the Environment, and the advice that it has received backs up my comments. In principle, one could control HMOs. It would cost one a lot; one would have to door-to-door surveys and so on. One would be able to control their spread, but one would have no control over student housing.
    Other factors are pressing in the same direction. Student letting is already easier for landlords. In a sense, one is more or less guaranteed vacant possession from time to time if one lets to students and there are no complications with housing benefit. But from April next year, student landlords will be exempt from council tax on those properties. If they let their properties to local people, the local people and the landlord will have to pay council tax, but not if they let their properties to students.
    That relief will not benefit students, because the rented market will charge as much as the students' purses can pay, but many landlords who run those properties purely as a private business will gain hundreds of pounds per property at the taxpayer's expense—a strong fiscal incentive to switch their properties from local people to students. Local people in Southampton are outraged that many of those properties which are adding to the decline of their area will make no financial contribution to running environmental and other services in inner-city communities.
    The final problem is that local authorities lack the powers to require higher education institutions to provide purpose-built accommodation. Both Southampton university and the institutions of higher education are now —if somewhat belatedly—making significant efforts to provide new student halls of residence, but their plans imply the loss of many more family homes in the city.
    Nationally, it is recognised that a shortfall of about 200,000 student places is forecast during the next few years, which implies the loss of about 40,000 or 50,000 family homes to student accommodation. Students are actively campaigning for better purpose-built accommodation, because they know how vulnerable they are to exploitative and neglectful landlords. Rents of up to £60 a week are being charged in Southampton for single rooms. The institutions of higher education face great problems in financing new student housing, but this issue would be dealt with elsewhere.
    I have set out the problems and the difficulties facing local authorities in exercising proper planning controls over the spread of student housing. I invite the Minister to make a number of responses implying a different level of
    718
    commitment. At the very least, I hope that he will recognise the seriousness of the problems that I have outlined and the extent to which they are shared by other university towns and cities. I hope that he will pledge to study with local authorities the impact of student housing on residential areas and of students on housing supply and the housing market.
    Secondly, I hope that the Minister will consider consulting with local authorities on changes to the Use Classes Order, which would enable local authorities to treat houses occupied by full-time students as HMOs. When the change was made, the Association of District Councils considered objecting to it. It did not do so, because it thought that the change would lead to a restriction of HMOs. As I said, the result is the reverse; it allows local authorities to restrict HMOs but not student housing, and I am sure that that was never the intention of the order when it was introduced.
    Thirdly, I urge the Minister to discuss with his colleagues a review of the council tax regulations, to ensure that, while maintaining relief for students, landlords running businesses should pay fair taxes and contribute towards the local services that tenants use, and to remove the fiscal bias from renting property to students rather than to local people.
    Fourthly, I hope that the Minister will review strategic planning powers to enable local authorities to make proper strategic provision for renting housing to local people and to require higher education institutions to house the projected increase in student numbers.
    We have heard a lot in recent years about the enabling role of local authorities in housing provision. This is an area in which that role should be played in full, in planning the availability of housing for local people throughout the city, in working with institutions of higher education to ensure that they exercise their responsibility and in using their powers to bring existing rented property up to a reasonable standard. If local authorities were enabled to do so, it would allow inner-city communities such as the area that I represent to maintain their vitality, health, vigour and confidence—which I hope is the aim of all of us.
    10.37 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): This debate focuses on the impact of the expansion of student numbers in residential areas.
    The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has expressed concern that the expansion of higher education in Southampton has resulted in a marked rise in conversions of larger houses for students, which has had housing and planning consequences.
    The hon. Member makes three suggestions: that student housing should be separated from other residential housing for the purposes of the Use Classes Order 1987, which would mean that converting homes to student use would require specific planning permission; that higher education establishments should be encouraged to provide more purpose-built student housing; and that local authorities should be enabled to make provision for more rented housing locally.
    First, I shall deal with the planning considerations. As the hon. Member has rightly said, properties may change from family homes to student houses without the need for

    719
    specific planning permission. Family houses and student housing fall within the same class—C3—of the Use Classes Order, because their impact in terms of land use, and their effect on the locality in terms of, for example, noise, traffic, and visual appearance are reckoned to be generally comparable. Class C3 comprises use as a dwelling house, either by a single person or by people living together as a family; or by not more than six residents living together as a single household.
    In contrast to its predecessors order of 1972, class C3 aims to provide more certainty about the planning position of multiple occupancy and other cases where houses are occupied by groups of unrelated people, such as students, nurses or professional people. Another advantage of class C3 is the flexibility it gives to property owners and landlords who wish to respond to changing patterns of the local demand for accommodation, without the burden of making planning applications.
    But the essential point is that the Use Classes Order is concerned only with considerations material to planning. It is the nature of the use of the land which is relevant. Land use is not about social, ethical or moral issues: the age, occupation or social background of residents whether they be students or anyone else, are not material planning considerations.
    The hon. Gentleman also spoke of his concerns about the increase in various kinds of nuisance perceived to be associated with student life, such as neighbourhood noise. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate all complaints about noise. The Act also provides environmental health officers with extensive powers to control noise by serving abatement notices which, if ignored, could result in a considerable fine. Where the threat of prosecution is not enough to bring the disturbance of, say, a noisy party to an end, local authorities may need to take immediate action so that people can enjoy their right to peace and quiet.
    In mention those sanctions not because I believe that students in general are inconsiderate—usually quite the reverse—but to emphasise the fact that where isolated instances of anti-social behaviour occur, local authorities already have more than adequate powers to deal with them.
    The hon. Gentleman is also concerned that there might be a decline of established communities, as a result of concentrations of a particular kind of resident in this case, students. I appreciate his concern about eroding the character of established residential areas, but changing patterns of housing demand inevitably lead to changes in the type of housing required. In some circumstances, they can best be met either by a simple change of use, needing no planning application, or by the adaptation and conversion of buildings, which will probably require the grant of planning permission.
    Where local authorities consider that the pressure for development is so serious as to threaten an established residential area whose character warrants protection, they may include policies on density of development in their local plans to protect that area—although they must take care to avoid undue rigidity. In general, the Government believe in the desirability of a reasonable housing mix, and a balance of house types and sizes, to cater for a range of housing need.
    Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept my basic point that the powers of local authorities to control density of development or conversions do not apply when a house changes from a family home to a student house? If a local authority finds that the impact of student housing is fundamentally changing the character of an area, it is unable to use any of the existing planning mechanisms to limit that change in character.
    Mr. Baldry: As I have explained to the House, the Use Classes Order considerations are planning considerations; they do not have regard to the nature of the occupants living in the home whether they be students, nurses or anyone else. That provision was introduced after consultation with local authority associations and others. Where local authorities are concerned about the change in the character of an area, due to the increased density of development, they have powers through their local plan to take action.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to houses in multiple occupation, HMOs. An HMO is defined as a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household —and it thereby falls outside the scope of the dwelling-house use class. That broad definition can cover a wide range of properties such as hostels, bedsitters, and bed-and-breakfast establishments. Of course, students, too, can live in HMOs. A change of use from an ordinary dwelling-house to an HMO will require planning permission and the planning authority will have an opportunity—indeed, a duty—to consider such applications on their planning merits.
    The hon. Member was also worried that the expansion of student housing could operate as a disincentive for private landlords to invest in the maintenance of their properties. The responsibility for repairs and maintenance is, of course, normally set out in a lease or tenancy agreement. For those tenancies granted since 1961 the landlord is, by law, responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the dwelling and, in most cases, for keeping in repair and proper working order sanitary, water-heating, and space-heating installations. For new tenancies granted for less than seven years since January 1989, the landlord is also responsible for the repair of most common parts of the building, and installations if they are owned or controlled by him.
    This brings me to consideration of the institutions of higher education themselves—in this case, the university and other higher education institutions in Southampton. Universities are autonomous bodies and, as such, are responsible for deciding their own funding priorities within the total resources at their disposal. Southampton university in particular has ambitious plans for growth. I fully appreciate the concerns expressed by the hon. Member and local residents about the potential impact of expansion of student numbers on residential communities and the effect that that has on availability of stock to local residents.
    I remind the House that Government grant to higher education institutions is provided through the funding councils, which distribute grant to institutions on the basis of criteria for teaching and research rather than for the provision of student residential accommodation. Where institutions decide to make such provision, they are expected to finance it from borrowing, rental income or other sources of funds at their disposal, taking account of their students' needs. However, the higher education

    721
    institutions in this country accommodate a larger proportion of students in their own accommodation than do those of our European partners.
    The hon. Member spoke of his concern and that of his constituents that students displace local people from the rented market. That is the crux of the matter. In any area, there will be X number of units of accommodation and Y number of people—students and non-students—wanting to occupy that accommodation. The House will know that the Government are committed to achieving a situation where those wanting accommodation and the accommodation that can be provided can come together, and the steps that we have taken to increase the supply of rented housing will greatly advance the cause.
    A fortnight ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed the Government's plans to allocate some £6 billion to the Housing Corporation over three years. In addition, this year's allocation is being increased by £600 million to enable housing associations to purchase new, empty and repossessed properties for rent and to allow housing association tenants to buy homes in the private sector. In the three years to the end of 1994–95, housing associations will be able to provide considerably more than the 153,000 new social homes forecast in our election manifesto.
    In addition, the House will recall that local authorities are also being allowed to spend all their capital receipts accrued between now and the end of 1993, releasing a considerable sum for increased housing provision—we estimate, over £1 billion for housing in the next year.
    Mr. Denham: If a local authority were to get its capital receipts—I do not wish to debate tonight whether local authorities will get as much as the Government say—would the Minister be willing to allow it much more flexibility to purchase properties, for example in the type of areas that I mentioned, to secure those properties for family use?
    Mr. Baldry: We see local authorities as enablers, working together with housing associations, the private sector and the Government to provide housing. Having
    722
    been chairman of the housing committee in Southampton, the hon. Gentleman will know that we see new social housing as being provided by housing associations. Because we are keen to see local authorities working together with housing associations and others, we have also set up capital partnerships worth some £600 million to local authorities this coming year, which local authorities can use in partnership with the Government.
    Under the business expansion scheme, many universities and other institutions have managed to devise schemes to provide housing specifically for students in their area.
    We are also keen to revive investment in private letting and to encourage landlords to make more accommodation available for rent. That will help residents in Southampton and elsewhere. The signs are that deregulation of rents for new lettings from 1989 is having an encouraging effect on supply, so that, for the first time in many years, the number of new lettings under the assured tenancy regime is beginning to overtake those coming to an end.
    We should not, of course, overlook existing resources and I should mention three initiatives we have launched to make better use of existing housing. First, we have introduced a scheme to allow housing associations to act as intermediaries between potential private landlords and tenants, in order to encourage more empty property to be let.
    Secondly, we have introduced a flats-over-shops scheme, designed to bring back into use the many properties in our high streets currently lying idle. Thirdly, we have introduced a new tax relief, the rent-a-room scheme, to give incentives to owner-occupiers and tenants to let rooms to lodgers. I suspect that there are many students in Southampton and elsewhere who start their student life as a tenant in a house with a resident landlord or landlady. No tax will be payable on the first £3,250 of rent received.
    I have listened carefully to the concerns that the hon. Member raised in the context of Southampton's—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Access to Children
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve the operation of access to children by their fathers where mothers and children have moved away from the area where the families lived before divorce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The law relating to access to children was comprehensively reformed in the Children Act 1989 and the Government have no current plans for further change. The arrangements enabling children to see a parent who lives in another area are primarily matters to be worked out by those concerned.

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS COMMITTEE

  Department of the Official Report
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee at what level the expenditure on(a) new carpets, (b) new lighting and (c) new desks and chairs was approved for the rooms occupied by the Department of the Official Report; what was the cost; and which company in which EC country was the manufacturer and supplier.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Detailed operational responsibility for these matters lies with the Director of Works. I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member.

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

  Glasses
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will make a statement on the reasons for the purchase of French-made glasses for use in Standing Committee rooms.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member.

EDUCATION

  School Governors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the percentage of school governors nationally from the ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Forth
  A survey carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research in 1990 found that 446
  just over 1 per cent. of school governors were from ethnic minority groups. A further survey is currently being carried out, the results of which should be available in March.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he has taken to increase the percentage of school governors from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Forth
  Throughout this year's "Schools Need Governors" campaign we have made clear that we would like people from the ethnic minorities to put themselves forward to be school governors. Our publicity leaflet and poster were translated into eight ethnic minority languages. Of the six individual governors featured in the leaflet, two were from the ethnic minorities.

  Textiles and Home Economics
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions will be made under the national curriculum to ensure that textiles and home economics will be taught.

  Mr. Forth
  Aspects of home economics are covered in a number of national curriculum subjects, including mathematics, science and technology. My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales are currently considering the recommendations of the National Curriculum technology review group and will make a full statement when their joint proposals are published for consultation towards the end of the year. There are no changes proposed to the national curriculum mathematics or science orders.

  School Field Trips
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of school field trips by local education authority for each year since 1985 and the number of pupils/students that have attended them; and what assessment he has made of the effects charges have had upon school field trips.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of school trips and the number of pupils attending them is not collected centrally. The Government have, however, been monitor-ing the effects of the legislation on charging contained in the Education Reform Act 1988. A survey of schools undertaken by the National Foundation for Educational Research, published in 1991 showed that the law had riot led to any significant change in the number of school field trips.

  Language Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the general availability of language teachers in the United Kingdom; and what measures he will take to increase their number.

  Mr. Forth
  For England and Wales, in January 1992 secondary schools reported that only 1·2 per cent.—162—of teaching posts in modern foreign languages were vacant.

  A £1,500 tax-free bursary has been offered since 1990 to encourage graduates to undertake initial teacher training in modern foreign languages. Recruitment to such training rose in 1990 and 1991 by 30·3 per cent. and 35·2 per cent. respectively, and 1992 is expected to show a further increase.
  447
  Information in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  School Governors (Interviews)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will issue guidelines to school governors on interviewing practice in respect of interviewing disabled applicants.

  Mr. Forth
  No. Governor training is an LEA responsibility and most provide training on appointing staff, which will include interviewing skills.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy to amend the draft medical questionnaire distributed to initial teacher trainees so as to reflect a more positive attitude to disablement and disabled people;

  (2) if he will consult the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation in connection with the draft medical questionnaire sent out to prospective teachers;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to local education authorities to secure the retention of disabled teachers.

  Mr. Forth
  Officials from the Department have recently met representatives from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to discuss these matters. Further representations from RADAR have been invited. I shall consider them carefully.

  "Choice and Diversity"
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which teacher unions he or his Ministers met to discuss the White Paper "Choice and Diversity"; and which organisations otherwise representing teachers were consulted.

  Mr. Forth
  The main teacher unions and organisations representing teachers were invited to comment on the White Paper. Their comments along with close to 1,000 other responses received, were carefully considered. My noble Friend the Minister of State addressed a conference for the Professional Association of Teachers on the subject of the White Paper.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the criteria used to determine the spending levels on education for grant-maintained(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; what was the total spending in each category for each of the last two years; and if he will divide these figures by region.

  Mr. Forth
  Grant-maintained schools receive the bulk of recurrent funding in annual maintenance grant-AMG. This is based on the levels of funding that schools could have expected to have received if still maintained by the relevant local education authority, including elements for spending on central services and school meals. The level of AMG for each school reflects spending decisions by individual local education authorities, from whom the grants are recouped.
  448
  Grant-maintained schools are eligible to receive transitional, special purpose and capital grants direct from the Department. The level of these grants is fixed each year, taking account of the level of funding schools need to meet their particular responsibilities as self-governing schools. Most of this funding is allocated on a simple formula basis with no differentiation between primary and secondary schools. Allocations for major capital projects are based on an assessment of school bids against a set of priorities notified to schools in advance.

  Total spending on grant-maintained primary schools was nil in 1990–91 and £3 million in 1991–92. Total spending on grant-maintained secondary schools was £68 million in 1990–91 and £179 million in 1991–92. The table shows how these totals break down by region:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  North

  0·0

  0·0

  1·4

  North West

  11·7

  0·4

  14·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·3

  0·1

  7·3

  West Midlands

  7·5

  0·0

  18·8

  East Midlands

  9·2

  1·2

  21·1

  East Anglia

  0·5

  0·8

  2·3

  South East

  29·2

  0·6

  97·1

  South West

  8·1

  0·0

  16·6

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many letters of complaint he has received from parents in Nottinghamshire about the county council's approach to opt-out ballots.

  Mr. Forth
  Nottinghamshire county council has made plain its opposition to parents seeking grant-maintained status for their children's schools, including through letters to parents which may be misleading. The Department has not so far received letters of complaint from parents about the council's approach to ballots, though informal complaints are made through a number of channels including in correspondence with hon. Members.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his reply of 12 November,Official Report, column 893, what was the number of formal complaints made to his Department from parents alleging misconduct by a headteacher or a governing body during the holding of a parental ballot on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what level of grant was given in 1991–92 to the Grant Maintained Schools Trust.

  Mr. Forth
  No grant has been given to the Grant Maintained Schools Trust. Grant of £600,000 was paid to the Grant Maintained Schools Centre in 1991–92.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his reply of 12 November,Official Report, column 893, how many formal complaints have been made to his Department from parents alleging misconduct by a local education authority during the holding of a parental ballot on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Hearing-impaired Children
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are currently being undertaken by his Department to encourage more young people to become qualified teachers of hearing-impaired children.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department assists local education authorities in England with the costs of training qualified teachers to become teachers of pupils with special educational needs. It does this through the grants for education support and training programme which supports the training of hearing-impaired pupils. The amount of LEA expenditure to be supported for this training is being raised from £7·2 million in 1992–93 to £10 million in 1993–94.

  Police Vetting
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance has been issued during the past 12 months to local education authorities who because of staff shortages may need to employ persons not yet cleared by the established police vetting procedure.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Rising-Fives
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those local education authorities in England and Wales which have a policy of once a year entry to school for rising five-year-olds; what entry procedures the remaining authorities employ; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on Welsh practice is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales. The term "rising fives" usually relates to children who are still four at the outset of a school term but will reach five before the term is over. A policy of admitting "rising fives" is thus one involving termly admissions to primary school. This practice has been widespread in England for years. We are aware that, more recently, numbers of local education authorities have adopted, or moved towards, a single entry date at the start of the school year in which a child becomes five, but records of individual authorities' practices are not kept centrally.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he gives to local education authorities about the timing of entry into schools of rising five-year-olds; and if he has any plans to change the current arrangements.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities are required to secure that all children receive schooling from the start of the term following their fifth birthday. The admission of younger children is a matter for local discretion. My right hon. Friend has issued no guidance on the arrangements that might be made in this discretionary area and has no plans to do so.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what measures he is taking to ensure the viability of enlarged in-school initial training for teachers in small primary schools;
  450
  (2) what information he has received on the effect of his proposals for changes in teacher education for the primary sector on teacher supply.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has made no proposals for changes in the training of primary school teachers. He intends to introduce changes to primary training, to improve its quality by making it more school-based and more closely related to what schools will need to achieve the higher standards envisaged in "Choice and Diversity", by no later than September 1994.

  Sandwich Courses
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take steps to collect information in respect of students undertaking sandwich courses in higher education who are having difficulty in securing the required industrial placements.

  Mr. Forman
  I am aware of the difficulty higher education institutions are having at present in securing industrial placements for some of their sandwich course students. This is essentially a matter for the institutions themselves, in conjunction with employers.

  Undergraduates (Fees)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total expenditure in respect of tuition fees for undergraduate courses in universities and polytechnics in the latest year for which figures are available; and how much of this was for students not qualifying for a mandatory maintenance grant on grounds of high parental income.

  Mr. Forman
  Tuition fee expenditure on mandatory awards for first degree students in universities, polytech-nics and colleges in England and Wales was £680 million in the academic year 1990–91. Information on fee expenditure for students receiving a nil maintenance grant because of high parental or other income is not available. However, 27·4 per cent. of students in receipt of mandatory awards received nil maintenance.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will set out for each local education authority in rank order the expenditure on major discretionary awards per head of adult population for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forman
  The available information is given in the table and excludes awards made to students by the London residuary body. Trafford and Isles of Scilly, included with Cornwall, made no full value awards.

  Local authority

  Total expenditure on full value discretionary awards per head of the adult population1 1990–91 (£)

  North Yorkshire

  13·63

  Knowsley

  9·97

  Wandsworth

  9·83

  Liverpool

  7·82

  Powys

  7·53

  Cheshire

  6·96

  451

  Local authority

  Total expenditure on full value discretionary awards per head of the adult population1 1990–91 (£)

  Leicestershire

  6·91

  Walsall

  6·45

  Wirral

  6·41

  Cumbria

  6·38

  Suffolk

  5·78

  Devon

  5·56

  Humberside

  5·52

  Gloucestershire

  5·33

  Kirklees

  5·26

  Lambeth

  5·21

  Hampshire

  5·19

  Dorset

  5·16

  Barnsley

  5·13

  Redbridge

  4·83

  Shropshire

  4·75

  Lancashire

  4·73

  City of London

  4·67

  Lewisham

  4·50

  Hackney

  4·37

  South Glamorgan

  4·34

  Gateshead

  4·30

  Bradford

  4·26

  Somerset

  4·17

  Richmond

  4·12

  Bolton

  4·08

  Clwyd

  4·06

  Southwark

  4·06

  Brent

  4·05

  Cleveland

  4·05

  Durham

  3·94

  Sefton

  3·89

  Kingston

  3·85

  Kent

  3·83

  South Tyneside

  3·80

  Ealing

  3·74

  North Tyneside

  3·70

  West Glamorgan

  3·58

  Waltham Forest

  3·50

  Norfolk

  3·49

  Isle of Wight

  3·39

  Bury

  3·36

  Nottinghamshire

  3·35

  Cambridgeshire

  3·33

  Tower Hamlets

  3·33

  Kensington

  3·31

  Wakefield

  3·22

  Calderdale

  3·19

  Bromley

  3·11

  Lincolnshire

  3·03

  Wiltshire

  2·89

  Cornwall/Isles of Scilly2

  2·83

  Newham

  2·79

  Northumberland

  2·68

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·66

  Leeds

  2·66

  Oxfordshire

  2·63

  Northamptonshire

  2·56

  Hammersmith

  2·49

  Harrow

  2·39

  Havering

  2·35

  Sandwell

  2·34

  Buckinghamshire

  2·33

  Gwent

  2·32

  Birmingham

  2·31

  Rochdale

  2·25

  Essex

  2·21

  Barking

  2·15

  Enfield

  2·15

  Bexley

  2·09

  Greenwich

  2·09

  Croydon

  2·04

  Doncaster

  1·96

  Sutton

  1·91

  452

  Local authority

  Total expenditure on full value discretionary awards per head of the adult population1 1990–91 (£)

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·91

  Newcastle

  1·81

  Staffordshire

  1·81

  Bedfordshire

  1·80

  Solihull

  1·76

  Hertfordshire

  1·70

  Hillingdon

  1·68

  Westminster

  1·64

  Oldham

  1·64

  Surrey

  1·62

  Derbyshire

  1·56

  Merton

  1·55

  Stockport

  1·51

  Dyfed

  1·50

  Warwickshire

  1·42

  East Sussex

  1·40

  St. Helens

  1·39

  Tameside

  1·39

  Rotherham

  1·29

  Hounslow

  1·28

  Manchester

  1·21

  Wolverhampton

  1·14

  Dudley

  1·12

  Wigan

  1·07

  Coventry

  1·05

  West Sussex

  1·01

  Sheffield

  1·00

  Salford

  0·84

  Haringey

  0·72

  Barnet

  0·56

  Islington

  0·41

  Gwynedd

  0·21

  Trafford

  0·00

  Sunderland3

  n/a

  Camden3

  n/a

  Berkshire3

  n/a

  Avon3

  n/a

  Notes:

  1 Mid 1989 projections of mid 1991 population aged 16 and over.

  2 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly combined because separate population data not available (Isles of Scilly made no full value awards during 1990–91).

  3 LEAs unable to supply appropriate information.

  Choice in Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what official contact Ministers and officials in his Department have had with Choice in Education in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Forth
  Officials from the Department meet representatives of Choice in Education from time to time. Choice in Education receives no grant from the Government.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what use the Church Commissioners have made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

  Mr. Michael Alison
  The Commissioners have used private detectives over the last five years to trace and to
  453
  serve legal documents on debtors. Information on the cost in each case is held on a case by case basis and the total cost is not, therefore, readily calculable. The firms involved are Andersons; Barrington Investigations; D-Tech; Finlay's Bureau of Investigations Ltd.; Lewis and Elliott; MacNab and Co; Madagans; M. J. Kane and Associates; Nicholas Linden and Pinkertons.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those agencies in his Department which are being considered for privatisation or contractorisation.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The scope for privatisation or contractorisation of Wilton Park and the Natural Resources Institute is considered as part of each agency's three-year review. The three-year review of the Natural Resources Institute is currently being undertaken. It will consider, inter alia, the strategic options.

  Iran
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will lodge a formal complaint with the Iranian Government over recent breaches of human rights in Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The abuse of human rights in Iran continues to cause us deep concern. We have made this clear on many occasions, both bilaterally and together with our EC partners, and will continue to do so.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom origin equipment or material was found by the United Nations special inspection team in Iraq at(a) the Al-Musayyib high explosive test site, (b) the Al-Atheer facility for manufacture of implosion bomb detonation devices, (c) the Al-Furat centrifuge factory for uranium enrichment or (d) the Akaswat phosphate mine and uranium extraction plants.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence those monitoring the United Nations sanctions against Iraq found of United Kingdom-manufactured computer equipment playing any part in Iraqi nuclear, chemical or biological weapon plans.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware that the inspections in Iraq by the United Nations special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have revealed the names of many companies around the world which have traded with Iraq, including some from Britain. It is possible that more names will be revealed as time goes on. It is not our practice to comment in detail on the information given to us by the IAEA or UNSCOM.

  Any evidence of wrongdoing will be urgently investigated and, if appropriate, will be a matter for the courts. However, it would be quite wrong to conclude, without further analysis, that the companies named have
  454
  behaved wrongfully. Until the invasion of Kuwait, trade with Iraq was not illegal provided strategic export controls were not breached.

  UNESCO
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent in monitoring the progress of UNESCO since the United Kingdom's withdrawal from membership.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It would involve disproportionate cost to detail all the costs incurred in following developments at UNESCO since 1985. The main charges are those of a first secretary in Paris and another in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 50 per cent. of whose duties are devoted to UNESCO; and a locally-engaged member of staff in Paris. The estimated 1991–92 cost of these staff is £143,630.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking towards curtailing the activities of armed Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in breach of the 1991 peace accord.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom has provided 120 personnel to the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia—UNTAC—military component, including military observers and a mine clearance training unit. We, together with our partners in the United Nations Security Council, will shortly be considering what steps should be taken in the light of the Khmer Rouge's refusal to co-operate with UNTAC.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to initiate legal or diplomatic action in relation to infringements by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge of international law.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No international criminal court now exists with jurisdiction over the offences in question. Under the terms of the Genocide convention, the only national courts with jurisdiction over Pol Pot would be those in Cambodia. If the new, legitimate Cambodian Government formed after elections next year wished to bring Pol Pot and his associates to trial, we would have no regrets.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to the continued participation of the Khmer Rouge in the peace process in Cambodia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our aim is to see the agreements on a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict implemented fully. The United Nations Security Council will again be addressing this question shortly. If the Khmer Rouge exclude themselves from the free and fair elections due to take place in April/May 1993, that is their choice.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on compliance with the Cambodian peace accord of October 1991.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We deplore the refusal of the Khmer Rouge to cooperate with the United Nations Transitional
  455
  Authority in Cambodia—UNTAC—and to respect its obligations under the Paris agreements. There has been considerable progress towards the implementation of the comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict. Despite occasional ceasefire violations, peace has returned to most of Cambodia. More than 170,000 refugees formerly in the camps on the Thai-Cambodian border have returned to Cambodia without a single fatality as a result of mines; and preparations are well in hand for the holding of free and fair elections in April/May 1993, with more than 1·5 million Cambodians now registered.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each month from January 1991 the number of(a) visa applications, (b) successful visa applications and (c) unsuccessful visa applications made by citizens of each republic of the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Nationals of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have required visas for the United Kingdom only since 7 November 1992. To obtain the information required for the period of 7 November to date would require a special exercise to consult all visa-issuing posts overseas and would result in dispropor-tionate cost.

  I will, however, ensure that the hon. Member receives the information he requires when it is to hand.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications from citizens of each of the former Yugoslav republics have been refused on the ground that the applicant does not have leave of absence from an employer.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is not at present available. Such statistics are normally provided monthly by posts abroad: since the visa regime was not applied on former Yugoslavia until earlier this month, to obtain them now would involve disproportionate cost.

  I will, however, ensure that the hon. Member receives the information he requires when it is to hand.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the fees charged to visa applicants from the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Visa applicants from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are required to pay the same fees as all other visa applicants. Current visa fees are listed in the Consular Fees Order 1989—SI (1989) 152—a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Kurdish People
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his Turkish counterpart on the treatment of Kurds in north Kurdistan, and the denial of parliamentary rights to Kurdish Members of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garet-Jones
  The Turkish Government are well aware of our concern about the human rights situation in Turkey. We welcome Prime Minister Demirel's commit-ment to introducing further human rights reforms.
  456
  It is not the case that the parliamentary rights of any Members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly of Kurdish origin have been withdrawn. But the public prosecutor has requested the removal of parliamentary immunity from some members of the People's Labour Party—HEP—so that they can be tried for charges arising out of alleged co-operation with terrorist organisations. The request for removal of immunity is currently under review by the parliamentary justice committee.

  The HEP members concerned are all of ethnic Kurdish origin. There is no question of lifting the immunity of other Kurdish members of the Grand National Assembly. We are following this issue closely.

  Bosnia and Slovenia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the posts in Bosnia and Slovenia where visa applications can be made for entry to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are none.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of visa applications that have been refused from Bosnian citizens who are(a) parents, (b) grandparents, (c) siblings and (d) other relatives of people in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is not at present available. Such statistics are normally provided monthly by posts abroad: since the visa regime was not applied to Bosnian citizens until earlier this month, to obtain them now would involve disproportionate cost.

  I will, however, ensure that the hon. Member receives the information he requires when it is to hand.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the provision of humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia since the Birmingham summit.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Good progress has been made in a number of areas. We have now committed more than £70 million in humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia: approximately £41 million as our share of the EC's relief programme and over £29·5 million bilaterally.

  We have played a leading role in establishing the European Community task force, an initiative which stems from the Birmingham summit. We have been the first member state to provide trucks and staff—including the leader for the task force. As also envisaged at Birmingham, member states have now appointed special representatives to oversee their humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia: they meet shortly under the chairmanship of the United Kingdom special representative, Tim Lankester, the Permanent Secretary of the Overseas Development Administration.

  In the meantime, we have also gone forward with direct action mainly in central Bosnia where the suffering is greatest. There are now 43 British trucks together with trailers, support vehicles and maintenance back up working on relief convoys. There are 75 British civilian

  457
  personnel working on the convoys or seconded as technical experts to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They will be joined by another 20 construction workers this week who will work on a major shelter programme designed to make existing buildings weather proof for around 20,000 people this winter in some of the worst affected areas. This is in addition to our substantial financial support for UN HCR, the World Health Organisation, the Red Cross and other non-governmental organisations. It is also in addition to the cost of providing 2,400 British troops for the UN protection force.

  Commonwealth
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider raising with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and the member states, the possibility of an invitation to join the Commonwealth being extended to the Irish Republic, on the same basis enjoyed by other members of the Commonwealth that are republics.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. We do not intend to approach the Commonwealth Secretary-General or other Commonwealth members of this matter; it is for the' Irish Republic to apply if it wishes.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much assistance was given by the United Kingdom to Somalia in each of the last 10 years(a) in humanitarian aid whether by cash grant or in kind, (b) in development aid whether by cash grant or in kind, (c) in loans and (d) in any other form.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table sets out figures showing United Kingdom gross bilateral development and humanitarian assistance to Somalia for each of the past 10 years. We have made no loans or given any other form of aid to Somalia during this period.

  Somalia: Untied Kingdom bilateral aid

  Year

  Development Aid (£.000)

  Humanitarian Aid (£.000)

  1981

  1,117

  1,324

  1982

  1,492

  1,036

  1983

  2,400

  86

  1984

  2,011

  47

  1985

  1,728

  9

  1986

  3,686

  255

  1987

  6,859

  433

  1988

  6,490

  124

  1989

  5,143

  152

  1990

  1,678

  —

  1991

  707

  1,988

  Chakufwa Chihana
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for an official from the United Kingdom mission in Malawi to attend the trial of Chakufwa Chihana on charges of sedition and publish a report of the proceedings.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Chakufwa Chihana's trail ended on 12 November. The judge has now withdrawn to consider 458
  the evidence. Members of the high commission staff together with representatives from other diplomatic embassies in Lilongwe took it in turns to ensure a continuous diplomatic presence at the trial. Transcripts of the proceeding are expected to be available through the high court in Blantyre. We do not propose to prepare an independent report of the proceedings.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government about the imprisonment and criminal charges brought against Chakufwa Chihana in Malawi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We made formal representations in April and August this year calling on the Malawian Government to release Mr. Chihana pending formal committal proceedings. We have told them that we considered his arrest and subsequent indictment to be a flagrant violation to his right to freedom of speech.

PRIME MINISTER

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is his policy towards introducing comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in favour of the rights of disabled people;

  (2) what plans he has to prohibit discrimination on the ground of physical disability; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We continue to work to eliminate discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability. We believe that this is best achieved by a combination of legislation targeted on clearly identified needs and a programme of education and encouragement.

  Additionality and Transparency
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the EC in the last three years in relation to the definition, interpretation or implementation of the principles of additionality and transparency; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There have been a number of discussions at ministerial and official level. An announce-ment was made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 17 February. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 30 June at columns 525–26.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister how Her Majesty's Government currently define and interpret the principles of(a) additionality and (b) transparency in relation to EC funding; in which ways these differ from those used by each of the other member states; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Article 9 of regulation 4253/88 requires that the structural funds have an additional economic impact in the regions concerned; and result in at least an equivalent increase in the amount of official structural aid in the member state concerned. The
  459
  Government fully support these principles, which are reflected in our public expenditure arrangements, details of which were set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 30 June.

  How other member states interpret the additionality and transparency requirement is a matter for the member state concerned and the Commission.

  Import and Export Control Act 1990
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to bring forward legislation to amend the Import and Export Control Act 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's Government have no plans to amend the Import and Export Control Act 1990 which repealed section 9(3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. The Government intend, however, to introduce a new Export of Goods (Control) Order in the near future.

  China
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Vice-Premier of the People's Republic of China.

  The Prime Minister
  My meeting with the Vice-Premier offered an important opportunity to reaffirm to the Chinese leadership the Government's strong support for the Governor's proposals for constitutional development in Hong Kong and to urge the Chinese to proceed through constructive discussion rather than confrontation. I also discussed commercial issues and human rights, including the visit of Lord Howe's delegation to China in December.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the cost of the inquiry by Lord Justice Scott into the sales of equipment to Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not possible at this stage to make such an assessment.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what specific measures have been taken to prevent the unauthorised removal, destruction of and tampering with all documents relating to the sale of arms and components to Iraq, held within Government Departments and elsewhere, which might be required by Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: Instructions have been issued to ensure that all papers relevant to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry are kept in safe custody and are made available to the inquiry when required.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his response to firms other than Matrix Churchill about the conditions of arms sales to Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: Arms sales to Iraq were considered under Her Majesty's Government's guidelines for the sale of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq until August 1990, when the United Nations embargo on trade with Iraq, including all arms sales, came into effect.
  460

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to pursuade his EC colleagues that the European central bank be situated in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have consistently drawn the attention of my EC colleagues to the advantages for the Community in establishing the new monetary institutions in the United Kingdom. I shall continue to do so.

  Child Labour, Colombia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to reply to the letter of 26 October from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby in respect of child labour in the Colombian coal mines.

  The Prime Minister
  I will respond to the hon. Member's letter shortly.

  Militarily Sensitive Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what armaments and military sensitive equipment, and in what quantity, were licensed by Her Majesty's Government for export to(a) Iraq and (b) Yugoslavia since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: Details of export licence applications for Iraq were included in a Department of Trade and Industry memorandum supplied to the Trade and Industry Select Committee and published in the minutes of evidence, 26 November 1991, pages 37–106. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will write to the hon. Member about exports licensed for supply to Yugoslavia.

  Party Conferences (Security)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what amounts have been claimed from central funds by each political party for security costs associated with conferences in each of the last three years.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: Claims have been made only by the Conservative and Labour parties. The figures are as follows:

  Conservative party £

  Labour party £

  1989

  274,500

  70,500

  1990

  270,500

  76,900

  1991

  330,000

  90,500

  On each occasion the expenditure was certified by the chief constable concerned as being necessary in the light of the assessed threat.

  Drug and Alcohol Services
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister what review Ministers have made of the effects of the ending of Government funding for health education co-ordination and of ring fencing of funding for residential drug and alcohol services; and if he will review the working of the Cabinet sub-Committee on drugs misuse.
  461
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: Support for drugs and health education has received specific grant funding for seven years and aspects of health education are now included in the national curriculum; schools and local education authorities now have a firm basis on which to build their provision for preventative health education.

  The community care special transitional grant of £539 million in 1993–94 will ring fence resources for the whole of community care; within this local authorities will be expected to allocate an amount for alcohol and drug services appropriate to their needs.

  The establishment of a special ministerial sub-committee reflects our firm commitment to tackling drugs misuse. We will continue to co-ordinate, and keep under review, our strategy in this area.

  Staff References
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to provide new guidelines to all Welsh non-departmental public bodies concerning the obligation to insist on a minimum of two references from previous employers for all applicants for senior appointments and for each reference to be taken up and checked before any appointee commences employment; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Welsh non-departmental public bodies have been sent the "Practitioners Guide for Civil Service Recruitment" as guidance; it includes a range of pre-appointment checks to be undertaken before a permanent appointment is made. It is the responsibility of the individual bodies to decide on the most suitable processes for making these checks.

  Ministerial Appointments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to amend paragraph 52 of the guidelines on public appointments set out in "Questions of Procedure" for Ministers so as to debar Ministers from appointing their own employees to be members of the boards of public bodies for which they are responsible.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: Under paragraph 52 of the guidelines set out in "Questions of Procedure", Ministers, having made such inquiries as they think appropriate, may, subject to public accountability and the requirements of the law, appoint those considered best qualified for each appointment. I have no plans to change the paragraph in question, which seems to me to be adequate and appropriate for its purpose.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Violent Crimes (Compensation)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the arrangements for compensating the victims of violent crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government are anxious to improve services to all victims of crime. For those seeking compensation under the criminal injuries compensation 462
  scheme we shall be making available an additional £180 million to meet compensation claims over the next three years. These resources are over and above the current substantial provision of £530 million. In addition we wish to improve and speed up the service to those making claims, especially in the light of the increasing volume of applications.

  Some of the main barriers to progress in this area were outlined in last year's wide ranging management review of the CIB. Copies of the report entitled "Management Review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board—Home Office Management Advisory Services with Capita Management Consultancy: June 1991", were placed in the Library of the House. Against that background and after careful consideration we have decided that a simplified procedure based on a tariff structure offers the best prospect of providing quicker payments to claimants through a means that is fair, straightforward and understandable.

  Further work is needed to develop the practical aspects of these new arrangements. This work should be completed by the first half of next year when a White Paper will be published setting out the details of the proposed new arrangements. We would expect these to come into operation early in 1994.

  Claims already lodged, and those submitted before the new tariff scheme takes effect, will be dealt with by the board under the existing arrangements.

  Drug-related Offences
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests in connection with drugs-related offences were made in Blyth Valley in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on arrests is not collected centrally. The table shows the number of prosecutions at Blyth Valley petty sessional division for drug-related offences from 1981 to 1991, which is provisional.

  Number of prosecutions at Blyth Valley magistrates' court for drug related offences 1981–9l1

  Drug offences

  Indictable

  Summary

  1981

  3

  —

  1982

  3

  —

  1983

  2

  —

  1984

  3

  —

  1985

  4

  —

  1986

  3

  —

  1987

  6

  —

  1988

  4

  —

  1989

  6

  —

  1990

  14

  —

  11991

  23

  —

  1 Provisional.

  Prison Officers' Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present number of prison officers working at each of the London prisons who are listed as waiting to be allocated a prison officer quarter.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the introduction of the fresh start agreement in 1987, prison officers are not entitled to
  463
  the provision of a prison service quarter. Consequently there are no records kept at any of the London prisons for officers waiting to be allocated a prison service quarter.

  This is because when official quarters become available, they are advertised by the governor within the establishment. All applications are considered by him, and factors such as the length of service, seniority and compassionate grounds, are taken into account in making an allocation.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what survey has been undertaken by his Department as to how prison officers newly posted to work in London prisons find suitable affordable accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No survey has been undertaken by the prison service as to how prison officers newly posted to London prisons find suitable accommodation. Since fresh start, prison officers are no longer quarters entitled.

  However, in recognition of the difficulties experienced by new prison officers, whose first posting, like that of other newly recruited civil servants, does not constitute a public expense transfer, officers who are purchasing property in high cost areas, and those posted to establishments in the south-east of England, including London, have since 1989 been able to claim up to £5,000 relocation expenses.

  Officers who are transferred to London prisons on permanent compulsory transfer terms are entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred in moving home. If they own a property, its sale at the current market value is guaranteed through a Home Office scheme operated by the Black Horse Relocation Company. Financial assistance to officers transferring at public expense from a cheaper to a more expensive area and whose outgoings have necessarily increased is available in the form of additional housing cost allowance. Officers may apply for an advance of salary for house purchase which is repayable, free of interest, over a 10-year period.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total amount of revenue received by his Department from the sale of prison officers' quarters in England and Wales in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total amount of receipts from the sale of prison officers quarters in England and Wales in each of the past 10 years were as follows:

  Receipts £ million

  1982–83

  6·8

  1983–84

  16·1

  1984–85

  16·6

  1985–86

  11·1

  1986–87

  12·1

  1987–88

  6·7

  1988–89

  61·0

  1989–90

  44·0

  1990–91

  22·0

  1991–92

  16·8

  11992–93

  5·6

  Total

  218·8

  1 (To date).

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers' quarters have been 464
  purchased or built for prison officers (a) in Greater London and (b) in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The numbers of quarters built or purchased in each of the last 10 years were as follows:

  Year

  Built

  Purchased

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  160

  1985–86

  100

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  80

  —

  1988–89

  58

  —

  1989–90

  —

  13

  1990–91

  —

  13

  1991–92

  —

  16

  1991–93 (to date)

  —

  6

  Totals

  238

  208

  Following the introduction of fresh start in 1987, prison officers were no longer entitled to quarters and quarters purchased since then have been for chaplains, farm managers and agricultural workers at the new prisons. The only quarters provided in the Greater London area were seven purchased for HM prison Belmarsh, Woolwich, in 1990–91.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of prison officers' quarters that have been sold in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total number of prison officers quarters sold in each of the last 10 years were as follows:

  Number sold

  1982–83

  463

  1983–84

  779

  1984–85

  739

  1985–86

  441

  1986–87

  455

  1987–88

  250

  1988–89

  2,260

  1989–90

  1,502

  1990–91

  698

  1991–92

  538

  11992–93

  152

  Total

  8,277

  1 to date

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officer quarters at each of the London prisons are still owned by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of prison officers' quarters owned by the Department at each of the London prisons is as follows:

  Number

  Belmarsh

  9

  Brixton

  172

  Feltham

  91

  Holloway

  150

  Latchmere House

  22

  Pentonville

  92

  Wandsworth

  144

  465

  Number

  Wormwood Scrubs

  182

  Total

  862

  Prison Chaplains
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison chaplains were working within prisons in England and Wales on 16 November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 16 November 1992 there were 397 chaplains working in prisons in England and Wales. These comprised:—

  Number

  Anglican

  Full-time

  109

  Part-time

  56

  Methodist

  129

  Roman Catholic

  103

  In addition, the prison service employs 114 substitutes who stand in as required, when a full-time chaplain is on leave or undertaking training. 567 visiting ministers have also been appointed under section 10 of the Prison Act 1952 to meet the needs of prisoners of other faiths.

  Genital Mutilation
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may prosecutions were brought against medical practitioners who carried out illegal female genital mutilation operations in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Records available centrally show no prosecutions in England and Wales from 1986 to 1991 —provisional—under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.

  Race Relations Act 1976
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposals from the Commission for Racial Equality for changes to the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commission for Racial Equality has put forward wide-ranging recommendations in its second review of the Race Relations Act 1976. The Government are now giving these careful consideration.

  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on prison officers took place between June and November; and at what prisons they occurred.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information relates to offences of assault and attempted assault on a prison officer which were punished under the prison discipline system and is given in the table. Data for offences punished in October and November arc not yet available.
  466

  Offences1 of assaulting a prison officer proved at adjudications in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in June to September 1992: by establishment at which punished

  Establishment at which punished

  Assault

  Offence Attempted assault2

  Total

  ALL ESTABLISHMENTS

  591

  56

  647

  All male establishments

  538

  53

  591

  Remand Centres

  59

  12

  71

  Brinsford

  6

  1

  7

  Cardiff

  1

  —

  1

  Dorchester

  1

  —

  1

  Exeter

  1

  1

  2

  Feltham

  18

  2

  20

  Glen Parva

  4

  1

  5

  Hindley

  3

  3

  6

  Moorland

  16

  1

  17

  Stoke Heath

  1

  1

  2

  Swansea

  1

  —

  1

  Local prisons

  205

  17

  222

  Bedford

  3

  —

  3

  Belmarsh

  23

  4

  27

  Birmingham

  22

  3

  25

  Bristol

  1

  —

  1

  Brixton

  6

  —

  6

  Bullingdon

  8

  —

  8

  Canterbury

  4

  —

  4

  Cardiff

  6

  1

  7

  Chelmsford

  8

  1

  9

  Durham

  10

  —

  10

  Elmley

  6

  —

  6

  Exeter

  2

  —

  2

  Gloucester

  1

  —

  1

  Hull

  3

  —

  3

  Leeds

  13

  —

  13

  Leicester

  2

  2

  4

  Lincoln

  8

  —

  8

  Liverpool

  6

  —

  6

  Manchester

  4

  —

  4

  Norwich

  3

  —

  3

  Pentonville

  15

  1

  16

  Preston

  3

  1

  4

  Reading

  4

  —

  4

  Shrewsbury

  3

  —

  3

  Swansea

  2

  —

  2

  Wandsworth

  8

  3

  11

  Winchester

  16

  —

  16

  Wolds

  4

  —

  4

  Wormwood Scrubs

  11

  1

  12

  Open Prisons

  6

  1

  7

  North Sea Camp

  2

  —

  2

  Standford Hill

  1

  1

  2

  Sudbury

  3

  —

  3

  Closed Training Prisons

  192

  16

  208

  Acklington

  5

  —

  5

  Albany

  4

  1

  5

  Blundeston

  17

  1

  18

  Camp Hill

  3

  —

  3

  Channings Wood

  1

  —

  1

  Coldingley

  5

  —

  5

  Dartmoor

  10

  1

  11

  Erlestoke

  2

  —

  2

  Featherstone

  1

  1

  2

  Frankland

  5

  1

  6

  Full Sutton

  33

  1

  34

  467

  Establishment at which punished

  Assault

  Offence Attempted assault2

  Total

  Garth

  13

  —

  13

  Haverigg

  2

  —

  2

  Highpoint

  2

  —

  2

  Lancaster

  1

  —

  1

  Lindholme

  3

  —

  3

  Littlehey

  1

  —

  1

  Long Lartin

  10

  1

  11

  Maidstone

  4

  —

  4

  Norwich (Britannia)

  1

  —

  1

  Nottingham

  4

  —

  4

  Parkhurst

  2

  —

  2

  Portsmouth (Kingston)

  1

  —

  1

  Risley

  1

  —

  1

  Rochester

  1

  —

  1

  Shepton Mallett

  4

  —

  4

  Stafford

  13

  1

  14

  Stocken

  5

  —

  5

  Swaleside

  14

  1

  15

  The Verne

  1

  —

  1

  Wakefield

  3

  1

  4

  Wayland

  4

  —

  4

  Wellingborough

  1

  —

  1

  Whitemoor

  12

  6

  18

  Wymott

  3

  —

  3

  Closed young offender institutions

  71

  7

  78

  Aylesbury

  13

  2

  15

  Castington

  8

  —

  8

  Deeerbolt

  3

  1

  4

  Dover

  7

  —

  7

  Feltham

  9

  1

  10

  Glen Parva

  6

  1

  7

  Hollesley Bay

  3

  —

  3

  Moorland

  7

  —

  7

  Northallerton

  3

  —

  3

  Onley

  7

  1

  8

  Stoke Heath

  5

  1

  6

  Short sentenced institutions

  3

  —

  3

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  —

  1

  Werrington

  2

  —

  2

  Juvenile institutions

  2

  —

  2

  Onley

  2

  —

  2

  All female establishments

  53

  3

  56

  Local prisons

  37

  3

  40

  Holloway

  15

  —

  15

  Low Newton

  1

  —

  1

  New Hall

  2

  —

  2

  Pucklechurch

  3

  2

  5

  Risley

  16

  1

  17

  Closed prisons

  9

  —

  9

  Bullwood Hall

  2

  —

  2

  Cookham Wood

  1

  —

  1

  Styal

  6

  —

  6

  Closed young offender institutions

  7

  —

  7

  Bullwood Hall

  5

  —

  5

  Styal

  2

  —

  2

  468
  1Provisional figures.

  2Including attempting, inciting or assisting.

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) thefts of a motor vehicle, (b) unauthorised takings of a motor vehicle, (c) thefts from a motor vehicle and (d) total vehicle crimes were committed in each police force area in each calendar year since 1979 inclusive, and in the 12 months ending June 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information is for offences recorded by the police and is given in the tables. It is not possible to separate offences of unauthorised taking from thefts of a motor vehicle.

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1979

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  7,320

  5,373

  12,693

  Bedfordshire

  3,701

  2,360

  6,061

  Cambridgeshire

  1,809

  2,620

  4,429

  Cheshire

  3,521

  2,909

  6,430

  Cleveland

  3,344

  2,932

  6,276

  Cumbria

  1,620

  2,060

  3,680

  Derbyshire

  3,253

  3,796

  7,049

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,726

  3,395

  7,121

  Dorset

  2,072

  2,613

  4,685

  Durham

  2,278

  3,231

  5,509

  Essex

  6,830

  6,838

  13,668

  Gloucestershire

  1,449

  1,813

  3,262

  Greater Manchester

  27,181

  17,613

  44,794

  Hampshire

  6,477

  6,567

  13,044

  Hertfordshire

  4,295

  4,752

  9,047

  Humberside

  3,261

  3,816

  7,077

  Kent

  8,212

  5,574

  13,786

  Lancashire

  6,619

  5,440

  12,059

  Leicestershire

  3,692

  3,031

  6,723

  Lincolnshire

  1,006

  1,404

  2,410

  City of London

  536

  623

  1,159

  Merseyside

  16,865

  11,283

  28,148

  Metropolitan Police District

  76,188

  77,402

  153,590

  Norfolk

  1,659

  2,662

  4,321

  Northamptonshire

  2,789

  2,007

  4,796

  Northumbria

  13,515

  11,186

  24,701

  North Yorkshire

  1,615

  2,190

  3,805

  Nottinghamshire

  6,650

  6,399

  13,049

  South Yorkshire

  6,368

  5,478

  11,846

  Staffordshire

  2,876

  4,415

  7,291

  Suffolk

  1,213

  1,853

  3,066

  Surrey

  2,270

  2,993

  5,263

  Sussex

  3,685

  4,144

  7,829

  Thames Valley

  10,244

  7,945

  18,189

  Warwickshire

  1,400

  1,508

  2,908

  West Mercia

  2,940

  3,408

  6,348

  West Midlands

  25,658

  15,713

  41,371

  West Yorkshire

  14,571

  13,619

  28,190

  Wiltshire

  1,709

  2,287

  3,996

  Dyfed-Powys

  783

  1,087

  1,870

  Gwent

  2,057

  2,183

  4,240

  North Wales

  2,161

  2,059

  4,220

  South Wales

  9,827

  7,768

  17,595

  Total

  309,245

  278,349

  587,594

  469

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1980

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  7,950

  6,706

  14,656

  Bedfordshire

  3,781

  2,682

  6,463

  Cambridgeshire

  1,760

  2,891

  4,651

  Cheshire

  3,911

  3,571

  7.482

  Cleveland

  3,046

  3,434

  6,480

  Cumbria

  1,305

  2,075

  3,380

  Derbyshire

  3,177

  4,175

  7,352

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,846

  4,128

  7,974

  Dorset

  2,037

  2,799

  4,836

  Durham

  2,414

  4,004

  6,418

  Essex

  6,622

  7,307

  13,929

  Gloucestershire

  1,456

  1,901

  3,357

  Greater Manchester

  27,776

  21,538

  49,314

  Hampshire

  6,502

  6,939

  13,441

  Hertfordshire

  4,378

  4,115

  8,493

  Humberside

  3,217

  4,281

  7,498

  Kent

  8,652

  6,121

  14,773

  Lancashire

  6,042

  5,010

  11,052

  Leicestershire

  4,025

  3,498

  7.523

  Lincolnshire

  1,020

  1,639

  2,659

  City of London

  504

  543

  1,047

  Merseyside

  16,125

  12,918

  29,043

  Metropolitan Police District

  88,112

  69,033

  157,145

  Norfolk

  2,051

  2,983

  5,034

  Northamptonshire

  2,721

  2,216

  4,937

  Northumbria

  14,229

  13,955

  28,184

  North Yorkshire

  1,540

  2,258

  3,798

  Nottinghamshire

  6,850

  7,674

  14,524

  South Yorkshire

  7,115

  6,328

  13,443

  Staffordshire

  3,325

  4,186

  7,511

  Suffolk

  1,208

  1,757

  2,965

  Surrey

  2,283

  2,967

  5,250

  Sussex

  3,864

  4,302

  8,166

  Thames Valley

  9,454

  7,975

  17,429

  Warwickshire

  1,522

  1,740

  3,262

  West Mercia

  3,215

  4,245

  7,460

  West Midlands

  26,197

  19,308

  45,505

  West Yorkshire

  14,486

  15,523

  30,009

  Wiltshire

  1,426

  2,474

  3,900

  Dyfed-Powys

  823

  1,143

  1,966

  Gwent

  1,913

  2,330

  4,243

  North Wales

  2,164

  2,243

  4,407

  South Wales

  10,310

  8,033

  18,343

  Total

  324,354

  294,948

  619,302

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1981

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  7,874

  9,216

  17,090

  Bedfordshire

  3,765

  3,560

  7,325

  Cambridgeshire

  1,863

  3,678

  5,541

  Cheshire

  4,021

  4,872

  8,893

  Cleveland

  2,887

  4,694

  7,581

  Cumbria

  1,314

  2,764

  4,078

  Derbyshire

  3,387

  5,869

  9,256

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,901

  6,415

  10,316

  Dorset

  2,150

  3,206

  5,356

  Durham

  2,173

  4,810

  6,983

  Essex

  6,269

  8,810

  15,079

  Gloucestershire

  1,548

  2,412

  3,960

  Greater Manchester

  28,203

  26,610

  54,813

  Hampshire

  6,950

  9,626

  16,576

  Hertfordshire

  4,190

  5,331

  9,521

  Humberside

  3,203

  5,965

  9,168

  Kent

  7,449

  6,632

  14,081

  Lancashire

  5,909

  7,200

  13,109

  Leicestershire

  4,103

  4,761

  8,864

  Lincolnshire

  960

  2,503

  3,463

  470

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  City of London

  498

  641

  1,139

  Merseyside

  18,308

  16,897

  35,205

  Metropolitan Police District

  94,064

  84,258

  178,322

  Norfolk

  2,377

  4,260

  6,637

  Northamptonshire

  2,538

  2.897

  5,435

  Northumbria

  15,069

  16,442

  31,511

  North Yorkshire

  1,530

  3,317

  4,847

  Nottinghamshire

  7,252

  10,548

  17,800

  South Yorkshire

  6,634

  8,305

  14,939

  Staffordshire

  3,248

  5,968

  9,216

  Suffolk

  1,188

  2,333

  3,521

  Surrey

  2,222

  3,192

  5,414

  Sussex

  3.717

  5,162

  8,879

  Thames Valley

  8,848

  11,093

  19,941

  Warwickshire

  1,495

  2,367

  3,862

  West Mercia

  3,182

  6,038

  9,220

  West Midlands

  28,191

  25,951

  54,142

  West Yorkshire

  14,753

  19,651

  34,404

  Wiltshire

  1,626

  3,114

  4,740

  Dyfed-Powys

  626

  1,479

  2,105

  Gwent

  1,813

  2,798

  4,602

  North Wales

  2,144

  3,698

  5,842

  South Wales

  9,148

  10,306

  19,454

  Total

  332,590

  379,640

  712,230

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1982

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  8,994

  10,353

  19.347

  Bedfordshire

  4,149

  4,084

  8,233

  Cambridgeshire

  2,234

  4,210

  6,444

  Cheshire

  3,962

  4,968

  8,930

  Cleveland

  3,162

  5,732

  8,894

  Cumbria

  1,379

  2,769

  4,148

  Derbyshire

  3,415

  6,399

  9,814

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,785

  8,337

  12,122

  Dorset

  2,620

  4,263

  6,883

  Durham

  2,473

  4,833

  7,306

  Essex

  6,618

  10,779

  17.397

  Gloucestershire

  1,664

  3,269

  4,933

  Greater Manchester

  28,979

  28,790

  57.769

  Hampshire

  7,333

  11,801

  19.134

  Hertfordshire

  4,134

  6,134

  10.268

  Humberside

  3,828

  6,660

  10,488

  Kent

  8,267

  9,631

  17.898

  Lancashire

  6,122

  8,051

  14.173

  Leicestershire

  4,107

  5,168

  9,275

  Lincolnshire

  1,140

  2,736

  3,876

  City of London

  476

  679

  1,155

  Merseyside

  18,472

  18,260

  36,732

  Metropolitan Police District

  98,099

  104,504

  202,603

  Norfolk

  2,807

  5,604

  8,411

  Northamptonshire

  3,082

  4,219

  7,301

  Northumbria

  17,867

  19,079

  36,946

  North Yorkshire

  2,070

  3,874

  5,944

  Nottinghamshire

  6,765

  10,261

  17,026

  South Yorkshire

  7,083

  9,548

  16,631

  Staffordshire

  3,130

  5,842

  8,972

  Suffolk

  1,351

  2,944

  4,295

  Surrey

  2,477

  3,850

  6,327

  Sussex

  4,157

  7,278

  11.435

  Thames Valley

  9,583

  13,831

  23,414

  Warwickshire

  1,703

  3,010

  4,713

  West Mercia

  3,457

  7,260

  10,717

  West Midlands

  28,262

  31,423

  59,685

  West Yorkshire

  15,894

  22,958

  38,852

  Wiltshire

  1,485

  3,874

  5,359

  Dyfed-Powys

  790

  1,675

  2,465

  Gwent

  1,783

  3,163

  4,946

  North Wales

  2,074

  3,832

  5,906

  471

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  South Wales

  9,998

  13,102

  23,100

  Total

  351,230

  449,037

  800,267

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1983

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  7,723

  9,688

  17,411

  Bedfordshire

  4,187

  3,924

  8,111

  Cambridgeshire

  2,210

  4,034

  6,244

  Cheshire

  3,774

  5,107

  8,881

  Cleveland

  2,832

  5,539

  8,371

  Cumbria

  1,363

  3,080

  4,443

  Derbyshire

  2,887

  5,925

  8,812

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,873

  7,637

  11,510

  Dorset

  2,557

  4,212

  6,769

  Durham

  2,296

  4,456

  6,752

  Essex

  6,178

  10,132

  16,310

  Gloucestershire

  1,583

  3,168

  4,751

  Greater Manchester

  29,451

  27,430

  56,881

  Hampshire

  7,276

  11,478

  18,754

  Hertfordshire

  3,598

  5,100

  8,698

  Humberside

  3,265

  6,415

  9,680

  Kent

  7,544

  8,694

  16,238

  Lancashire

  5,745

  8,063

  13,808

  Leicestershire

  3,784

  4,981

  8,765

  Lincolnshire

  1,160

  2,726

  3,886

  City of London

  451

  714

  1,165

  Merseyside

  15,737

  17,283

  33,020

  Metropolitan Police District

  86,465

  96,342

  182,807

  Norfolk

  2,473

  5,023

  7,496

  Northamptonshire

  3,145

  3,981

  7,126

  Northumbria

  17,572

  18,559

  36,131

  North Yorkshire

  1,998

  3,522

  5,520

  Nottinghamshire

  5,785

  9,812

  15,597

  South Yorkshire

  6,784

  9,933

  16,717

  Staffordshire

  3,224

  6,082

  9,306

  Suffolk

  1,338

  3,184

  4,522

  Surrey

  2,527

  3,932

  6,459

  Sussex

  3,729

  7,363

  11,092

  Thames Valley

  9,451

  13,576

  23,027

  Warwickshire

  1,711

  2,893

  4,604

  West Mercia

  2,803

  6,506

  9,309

  West Midlands

  27.343

  29,405

  56,748

  West Yorkshire

  14,398

  19,740

  34,138

  Wiltshire

  1,638

  3,616

  5,254

  Dyfed-Powys

  694

  1,478

  2,172

  Gwent

  1,793

  3,139

  4,932

  North Wales

  1,724

  3,864

  5,588

  South Wales

  9,630

  12,502

  22,132

  Total

  325,699

  424,238

  749,937

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1984

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  8.244

  10,640

  18,884

  Bedfordshire

  4,415

  3,960

  8,375

  Cambridgeshire

  1,950

  4,302

  6,252

  Cheshire

  3,696

  4,849

  8,545

  Cleveland

  3,390

  6,707

  10,097

  Cumbria

  1,265

  3,237

  4,502

  Derbyhire

  2,853

  5,964

  8,817

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,231

  7,642

  11,873

  Dorset

  2,831

  4,422

  7,253

  Durham

  2,447

  5,370

  7,817

  472

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Essex

  6,394

  9,784

  16,178

  Gloucestershire

  1,673

  3,416

  5,089

  Greater Manchester

  32,424

  30,006

  62,430

  Hampshire

  7,316

  12,263

  19,579

  Hertfordshire

  4,183

  4,645

  8,828

  Humberside

  3,323

  6,139

  9,462

  Kent

  8,112

  8,962

  17,074

  Lancashire

  5,614

  7,527

  13,141

  Leicestershire

  4,046

  5,473

  9,519

  Lincolnshire

  1,212

  2,982

  4,194

  City of London

  413

  762

  1,175

  Merseyside

  17,253

  19,631

  36,884

  Metropolitan Police District

  87,563

  105,637

  193,200

  Norfolk

  2,640

  5,235

  7,875

  Northamptonshire

  3,078

  4,287

  7,365

  Northumbria

  19,379

  20,893

  40,272

  North Yorkshire

  1,972

  3,570

  5,542

  Nottinghamshire

  6,399

  11,785

  18,184

  South Yorkshire

  7,905

  11,611

  19,516

  Staffordshire

  3,081

  6,181

  9,262

  Suffolk

  1,284

  3,255

  4,539

  Surrey

  2,508

  3,932

  6,440

  Sussex

  4,686

  7,716

  12,402

  Thames Valley

  10,004

  15,113

  25,117

  Warwickshire

  1,946

  3,025

  4,971

  West Mercia

  3,073

  6,293

  9,366

  West Midlands

  29,745

  30,009

  59,754

  West Yorkshire

  15,475

  21,622

  37,097

  Wiltshire

  1,654

  3,756

  5,410

  Dyfed-Powys

  621

  1,758

  2,379

  Gwent

  1,845

  3,190

  5,035

  North Wales

  1,969

  3,660

  5,629

  South Wales

  10,694

  13,732

  24,426

  Total

  344,806

  454,943

  799,749

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1985

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  8,972

  11,753

  20,725

  Bedfordshire

  4,143

  4,433

  8,576

  Cambridgeshire

  2,328

  4,310

  6,638

  Cheshire

  4,241

  5,307

  9,548

  Cleveland

  3,520

  6,304

  9,824

  Cumbria

  1,387

  3,000

  4,387

  Derbyshire

  2,927

  5,873

  8,800

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,477

  8,566

  13,043

  Dorset

  3,193

  4,491

  7,684

  Durham

  2,911

  5,748

  8,659

  Essex

  7,028

  9,395

  16,423

  Gloucestershire

  2,131

  3,734

  5,865

  Greater Manchester

  37,703

  32,921

  70,624

  Hampshire

  7,636

  12,521

  20,157

  Hertfordshire

  3,725

  4,920

  8,645

  Humberside

  4,229

  7,398

  11,627

  Kent

  8,966

  9,472

  18,438

  Lancashire

  6,429

  7,564

  13,993

  Leicestershire

  4,991

  6,509

  11,500

  Lincolnshire

  1,492

  3,376

  4,868

  City of London

  420

  660

  1,080

  Merseyside

  18,131

  20,178

  38,309

  Metropolitan Police District

  88,076

  111,701

  199,777

  Norfolk

  3,127

  5,570

  8,697

  Northamptonshire

  3,937

  5,264

  9,201

  Northumbria

  19,310

  22,213

  41,523

  North Yorkshire

  2,103

  4,431

  6,534

  Nottinghamshire

  6,282

  11,829

  18,111

  South Yorkshire

  7,384

  10,407

  17,791

  Staffordshire

  3,394

  6,423

  9,817

  Suffolk

  1,440

  3,273

  4,713

  Surrey

  2,613

  4,239

  6,852

  473

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Sussex

  5,009

  8,238

  13,247

  Thames Valley

  11,178

  15,986

  27,164

  Warwickshire

  1,845

  3,062

  4,907

  West Mercia

  3,244

  6,924

  10,168

  West Midlands

  32,954

  33,966

  66,920

  West Yorkshire

  16,099

  21,000

  37,099

  Wiltshire

  1,833

  3,481

  5,314

  Dyfed-Powys

  773

  1,777

  2,550

  Gwcnt

  1.894

  3,365

  5,259

  North Wales

  2,040

  3,667

  5,707

  South Wales

  11,911

  13,719

  25,630

  Total

  367,426

  478,968

  846,394

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1986

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  11,244

  16,444

  27,688

  Bedfordshire

  5,352

  6,403

  11,755

  Cambridgeshire

  2,439

  4,299

  6,738

  Cheshire

  4,725

  6,756

  11,481

  Cleveland

  5,549

  7,238

  12,787

  Cumbria

  1,728

  4,037

  5,765

  Derbyshire

  3,171

  5,795

  8,966

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,400

  10,674

  16,074

  Dorset

  3,838

  5,111

  8,949

  Durham

  3,874

  5,114

  8,988

  Essex

  8,579

  11,762

  20,341

  Gloucestershire

  2,348

  4,646

  6,994

  Greater Manchester

  43,200

  47,277

  90,477

  Hampshire

  8,566

  14,270

  22,836

  Hertfordshire

  4,303

  5,875

  10,178

  Humberside

  4,762

  8,242

  13,004

  Kent

  9,959

  10,116

  20,075

  Lancashire

  7,868

  9,145

  17,013

  Leicestershire

  5,325

  6,915

  12,240

  Lincolnshire

  1,790

  3,659

  5,449

  City of London

  351

  1,033

  1,384

  Merseyside

  18,312

  27,416

  45,728

  Metropolitan Police District

  91,331

  134,458

  225,789

  Norfolk

  3,605

  6,037

  9,642

  Northamptonshire

  4,931

  5,597

  10,528

  Northumbria

  19,693

  27,105

  46,798

  North Yorkshire

  2,599

  4,486

  7,085

  Nottinghamshire

  6,638

  12,892

  19,530

  South Yorkshire

  9,477

  12,230

  21,707

  Staffordshire

  4,640

  7,386

  12,026

  Suffolk

  1,629

  4,028

  5,657

  Surrey

  2,854

  5,119

  7,973

  Sussex

  5,290

  8,870

  14,160

  Thames Valley

  13,365

  18,065

  31,430

  Warwickshire

  2,149

  3,449

  5,598

  West Mercia

  3,982

  7,385

  11,367

  West Midlands

  37,322

  42,537

  79,859

  West Yorkshire

  16,727

  25,059

  41,786

  Wiltshire

  1,991

  3,911

  5,902

  Dyfed-Powys

  888

  1,803

  2,691

  Gwent

  2,012

  3,336

  5,348

  North Wales

  2,526

  4,315

  6,841

  South Wales

  14,728

  17,119

  31,847

  Total

  411,060

  577,414

  988,474

  474

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1987

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  10,945

  21,457

  32,402

  Bedfordshire

  5,068

  7,996

  13,064

  Cambridgeshire

  2,512

  4,746

  7,258

  Cheshire

  5,441

  7,818

  13,259

  Cleveland

  5,832

  7,247

  13,079

  Cumbria

  1,603

  4,062

  5,665

  Derbyshire

  2.967

  6,731

  9,698

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,073

  11,356

  16,429

  Dorset

  4,037

  6,091

  10,128

  Durham

  4,311

  5,260

  9,571

  Essex

  8,404

  14,125

  22,529

  Gloucestershire

  2,539

  5,443

  7,982

  Greater Manchester

  37,936

  57,319

  95,255

  Hampshire

  8,453

  16,074

  24,527

  Hertfordshire

  4,017

  6,904

  10,921

  Humberside

  5,396

  9,902

  15,298

  Kent

  9,248

  11,887

  21,135

  Lancashire

  7,867

  12,906

  20,773

  Leicestershire

  4,931

  8,318

  13,249

  Lincolnshire

  1,929

  4,322

  6,251

  City of London

  296

  807

  1,103

  Merseyside

  18,873

  28,735

  47,608

  Metropolitan Police District

  77,642

  133,033

  210,675

  Norfolk

  3,964

  6,896

  10,860

  Northamptonshire

  4,821

  6,582

  11,403

  Northumbria

  19,488

  31,961

  51,449

  North Yorkshire

  2,817

  5,278

  8,095

  Nottinghamshire

  7,038

  15,885

  22,923

  South Yorkshire

  9,312

  13,821

  23,133

  Staffordshire

  4,376

  8,333

  12,709

  Suffolk

  1,863

  4,455

  6,318

  Surrey

  2,922

  5,485

  8,407

  Sussex

  5,262

  9,167

  14,429

  Thames Valley

  13,996

  20,785

  34,781

  Warwickshire

  2,638

  4,899

  7,537

  West Mercia

  3,875

  8,340

  12,215

  West Midlands

  34,206

  57,461

  91,667

  West Yorkshire

  16,363

  31,268

  47,631

  Wiltshire

  1,916

  4,011

  5,927

  Dyfed-Powys

  994

  2,122

  3,116

  Gwent

  2,134

  4,212

  6,346

  North Wales

  2,275

  4,845

  7,120

  South Wales

  13,996

  20,232

  34,228

  Total

  389,576

  658,577

  1,048,153

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by by police force area England and Wales 1988

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  10,189

  18,653

  28,842

  Bedfordshire

  5,046

  7,379

  12,425

  Cambridgeshire

  2,812

  4,911

  7,723

  Cheshire

  5,342

  6,548

  11,890

  Cleveland

  5,846

  8,701

  14,547

  Cumbria

  1,372

  4,050

  5,422

  Derbyshire

  2,851

  6,822

  9,673

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,318

  11,574

  16,892

  Dorset

  3,261

  5,672

  8,933

  Durham

  4,091

  5,931

  10,022

  Essex

  7,607

  13,095

  20,702

  Gloucestershire

  2,388

  6,225

  8,613

  Greater Manchester

  38,196

  48,171

  86,367

  Hampshire

  7,543

  15,038

  22,581

  Hertfordshire

  4,103

  6,407

  10,510

  Humberside

  5,565

  10,950

  16,515

  Kent

  8,919

  12,233

  21,152

  Lancashire

  8,100

  13,178

  21,278

  Leicestershire

  4,745

  8,979

  13,724

  Lincolnshire

  2,055

  3,949

  6,004

  475

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  City of London

  217

  634

  851

  Merseyside

  17,033

  22,260

  39,293

  Metropolitan Police District

  67,968

  124,575

  192,543

  Norfolk

  3,955

  7,682

  11,637

  Northamptonshire

  4,816

  6,210

  11,026

  Northumbria

  18,726

  29,261

  47,987

  North Yorkshire

  2,615

  5,342

  7,957

  Nottinghamshire

  6,739

  15,849

  22,588

  South Yorkshire

  8,503

  14,033

  22,536

  Staffordshire

  4,859

  9,287

  14,146

  Suffolk

  1,779

  3,965

  5,744

  Surrey

  2,493

  5,002

  7,495

  Sussex

  5,497

  10,065

  15,562

  Thames Valley

  11,659

  19,310

  30,969

  Warwickshire

  2,525

  3,679

  6,204

  West mercia

  3,933

  7,859

  11,792

  West Midlands

  28,802

  48,007

  76,809

  West Yorkshire

  16,058

  29,597

  45,655

  Wiltshire

  1,919

  3,886

  5,805

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,119

  2,260

  3,379

  Gwent

  1,864

  3,856

  5,720

  North Wales

  2,260

  4,360

  6,620

  South Wales

  16,025

  25,178

  41,203

  Total

  366,713

  620,623

  987,336

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1989

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  12,373

  16,891

  29,264

  Bedfordshire

  5,360

  7,190

  12,550

  Cambridgeshire

  3,007

  4,920

  7,927

  Cheshire

  5,840

  6,131

  11,971

  Cleveland

  7,190

  9,135

  16,325

  Cumbria

  1,815

  3,877

  5,692

  Derbyshire

  3,690

  8,035

  11,725

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,250

  12,424

  17,674

  Dorset

  3,886

  6,527

  10,413

  Durham

  4,678

  5,680

  10,358

  Essex

  8,209

  13,885

  22,094

  Gloucestershire

  2,756

  6,451

  9,207

  Greater Manchester

  39,933

  48,202

  88,135

  Hampshire

  8,206

  15,305

  23,511

  Hertfordshire

  4,022

  5,709

  9,731

  Humberside

  6,144

  11,825

  17,969

  Kent

  10,418

  12,216

  22,634

  Lancashire

  8,229

  14,202

  22,431

  Leicestershire

  5,933

  9,386

  15,319

  Lincolnshire

  2,035

  4,124

  6,159

  City of London

  214

  794

  1,008

  Merseyside

  15,915

  20,850

  36,765

  Metropolitan Police District

  66,895

  126,578

  193,473

  Norfolk

  4,136

  7,694

  11,830

  Northamptonshire

  4,604

  6,618

  11,222

  Northumbria

  21,475

  33,117

  54,592

  North Yorkshire

  2,798

  5,066

  7,864

  Nottinghamshire

  9,116

  17,855

  26,971

  South Yorkshire

  9,418

  16,055

  25,473

  Staffordshire

  5,960

  8,946

  14,906

  Suffolk

  1,938

  3,820

  5,758

  Surrey

  2,779

  5,185

  7,964

  Sussex

  6,226

  11,051

  17,277

  Thames Valley

  14,905

  19,764

  34,669

  Warwickshire

  2,895

  4,464

  7,359

  West Mercia

  4,516

  7,624

  12,140

  West Midlands

  28,794

  42,497

  71,291

  West Yorkshire

  19,006

  32,878

  51,884

  Wiltshire

  2,006

  3,524

  5,530

  Dyfed-Powys

  966

  1,772

  2,738

  Gwent

  2,026

  4,078

  6,104

  North Wales

  2,161

  4,026

  6,187

  476

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  South Wales

  15,676

  22,541

  38,217

  Total

  393,399

  628,912

  1,022,311

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1990

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  16,435

  23,366

  39,801

  Bedfordshire

  8,378

  11,470

  19,848

  Cambridgeshire

  3,630

  6,199

  9,829

  Cheshire

  6,817

  7,789

  14,606

  Cleveland

  10,219

  13,362

  23,581

  Cumbria

  2,254

  4,900

  7,154

  Derbyshire

  5,559

  10,470

  16,029

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,703

  15,785

  22,488

  Dorset

  4,728

  8,359

  13,087

  Durham

  6,944

  7,355

  14,299

  Essex

  10,926

  17,907

  28,833

  Gloucestershire

  3,077

  8,215

  11,292

  Greater Manchester

  48,735

  55,139

  103,874

  Hampshire

  9,875

  20,298

  30,173

  Hertfordshire

  4,933

  7,857

  12,790

  Humberside

  7,516

  15,544

  23,060

  Kent

  13,898

  16,568

  30,466

  Lancashire

  10,294

  18,675

  28,969

  Leicestershire

  8,499

  13,687

  22,186

  Lincolnshire

  2,638

  4,781

  7,419

  City of London

  200

  803

  1,003

  Merseyside

  16,702

  21,003

  37,705

  Metropolitan Police District

  73,936

  135,447

  209,383

  Norfolk

  4,798

  10,823

  15,621

  Northamptonshire

  5,630

  8,103

  13,733

  Northumbria

  27,981

  34,452

  62,433

  North Yorkshire

  3,992

  6,976

  10,968

  Nottinghamshire

  15,074

  24,922

  39,996

  South Yorkshire

  12,499

  19,315

  31,814

  Staffordshire

  7,077

  12,601

  19,678

  Suffolk

  2,709

  4,842

  7,551

  Surrey

  3,874

  6,832

  10,706

  Sussex

  7,210

  15,465

  22,675

  Thames Valley

  18,266

  28,000

  46,266

  Warwickshire

  3,950

  6,557

  10,507

  West Mercia

  5,933

  9,453

  15,386

  West Midlands

  34,236

  50,085

  84,321

  West Yorkshire

  29,045

  44,587

  73,632

  Wiltshire

  2,496

  4,804

  7,300

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,254

  2,405

  3,659

  Gwent

  2,622

  5,430

  8,052

  North Wales

  2,534

  5,702

  8,236

  South Wales

  20,133

  26,746

  46,879

  Total

  494,209

  773,079

  1,267,288

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by police force area England and Wales 1991

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  19,903

  30,181

  50,084

  Bedfordshire

  8,292

  12,035

  20,327

  Cambridgeshire

  4,655

  8,998

  13,653

  Cheshire

  8,289

  9,485

  17,774

  Cleveland

  11,712

  12,369

  24,081

  Cumbria

  3,632

  6,627

  10,259

  Derbyshire

  7,410

  13,621

  21,031

  Devon and Cornwall

  7,923

  19,526

  27,449

  Dorset

  4,560

  8,618

  13,178

  Durham

  8,640

  10,053

  18,693

  477

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Essex

  11,377

  20,610

  31,987

  Gloucestershire

  3,927

  11,432

  15,359

  Greater Manchester

  55,338

  60,461

  115,799

  Hampshire

  11,919

  26,720

  38,639

  Hertfordshire

  6,149

  10,548

  16,697

  Humberside

  8,506

  17,909

  26,415

  Kent

  17,962

  23,558

  41,520

  Lancashire

  11,042

  21,687

  32,729

  Leicestershire

  10,751

  16,104

  26,855

  Lincolnshire

  2,779

  4,958

  7,737

  City of London

  239

  839

  1,078

  Merseyside

  16,983

  22,156

  39,139

  Metropolitan Police District

  81,173

  154,453

  235,626

  Norfolk

  5,510

  12,780

  18,290

  Northamptonshire

  6,514

  10,466

  16,980

  Northumbria

  30,356

  32,680

  63,036

  North Yorkshire

  4,999

  8,312

  13,311

  Nottinghamshire

  17,603

  27,884

  45,487

  South Yorkshire

  16,323

  21,848

  38,171

  Staffordshire

  9,290

  15,382

  24,672

  Suffolk

  2,721

  6,037

  8,758

  Surrey

  4,860

  9,851

  14,711

  Sussex

  9,251

  21,020

  30,271

  Thames Valley

  22,556

  40,302

  62,858

  Warwickshire

  4,700

  8,244

  12,944

  West Mercia

  8,652

  11,937

  20,589

  West Midlands

  41,415

  54,360

  95,775

  West Yorkshire

  40,235

  55,425

  95,660

  Wiltshire

  2,967

  5,900

  8,867

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,476

  3,029

  4,505

  Gwent

  3,240

  6,786

  10,026

  North Wales

  3,102

  6,970

  10,072

  South Wales

  22,970

  31,115

  54,085

  Total

  581,901

  913,276

  1,495,177

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime by by police force area England and Wales—12 months ending June 1992

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Avon and Somerset

  17,907

  30,590

  48,497

  Bedfordshire

  7,586

  10,630

  18,216

  Cambridgeshire

  5,096

  9,621

  14,717

  Cheshire

  8,488

  10,913

  19,401

  Cleveland

  12,002

  12,394

  24,396

  Cumbria

  3,371

  6,989

  10,360

  Derbyshire

  8,205

  16,408

  24,613

  Devon and Cornwall

  7,427

  20,362

  27,789

  Dorset

  3,972

  7,935

  11,907

  Durham

  8,164

  10,030

  18,194

  Essex

  11,429

  21,020

  32,449

  Gloucestershire

  4,708

  13,294

  18,002

  Greater Manchester

  54,716

  58,640

  113,356

  Hampshire

  11,579

  27,669

  39,248

  Hertfordshire

  6,512

  11,299

  17,811

  Humberside

  8,618

  18,444

  27,062

  Kent

  18,289

  24,604

  42,893

  Lancashire

  11,272

  22,432

  33,704

  Receptions of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners into prison service establishments in England and Wales: by nationality, sex and year of initial reception, 1989–91

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  1989

  1990

  11991

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  United Kingdom

  27,559

  1,039

  32,986

  1,630

  48,762

  2,541

  Nigeria

  305

  64

  180

  65

  256

  67

  Other West African

  46

  13

  59

  6

  72

  10

  Colombian

  20

  6

  19

  2

  50

  5

  Pakistani

  118

  2

  138

  3

  219

  7

  Other

  1,359

  134

  1,784

  178

  2,983

  229

  Not recorded/refused

  32,863

  2,377

  21,801

  1,323

  7,080

  323

  478

  Police force area

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Leicestershire

  10,495

  16,756

  27,251

  Lincolnshire

  2,991

  5,650

  8,641

  City of London

  203

  877

  1,080

  Merseyside

  16,425

  22,124

  38,549

  Metropolitan Police District

  80,837

  157,463

  238,300

  Norfolk

  5,145

  13,215

  18,360

  Northamptonshire

  6,645

  9,425

  16,070

  Northumbria

  28,149

  30,063

  58,212

  North Yorkshire

  4,758

  8,806

  13,564

  Nottinghamshire

  17,025

  27,213

  44,238

  South Yorkshire

  17,220

  22,473

  39,693

  Staffordshire

  9,854

  15,816

  25,670

  Suffolk

  2,593

  6,406

  8,999

  Surrey

  4,816

  10,771

  15,587

  Sussex

  9,214

  21,561

  30,775

  Thames Valley

  22,531

  44,527

  67,058

  Warwickshire

  4,604

  8,381

  12,985

  West Mercia

  8,536

  13,004

  21,540

  West Midlands

  38,905

  55,362

  94,267

  West Yorkshire

  37,691

  54,241

  91,932

  Wiltshire

  2,889

  6,177

  9,066

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,591

  3,434

  5,025

  Gwent

  3,465

  6,574

  10,039

  North Wales

  3,418

  7,452

  10,870

  South Wales

  22,855

  30,242

  53,097

  Total

  572,196

  931,287

  1,503,483

  Gambling
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on stimulating the demand for gambling.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is the Government's policy that the demand for gambling should not be unduly encouraged, because of the damage it can cause if taken to excess. This principle is applied in different degrees to different forms of gambling. The greater the scope for abuse and commercial exploitation the more rigorously it is applied.

  Bail
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-United Kingdom(a) men and (b) women were granted bail and how many remanded in custody for each of the last five years; and of those, how many were from (i) Nigeria, (ii) other West African countries, (iii) Colombia and (iv) Pakistan.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The nationality of persons remanded on bail is not recorded centrally. Information for prisoners remanded into prison service establishments in each of the years 1989–91 is given in the table. Data for earlier years are not readily available.
  479

  Nationality

  1989

  1990

  l1991

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  All nationalities

  62,270

  3,635

  56,967

  3,207

  59,422

  3,182

  1 Provisional.

  Prison Education Services
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will make the decision to award a contract for prison education services after tenders have been submitted; and what is his policy in respect of treating each prison on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The contracts for the provision of education services to inmates in prisons in England and Wales from 1 April 1993 will be let between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the successful tenderers. As with other contracts of this value, the responsible organisation—in this case, the prison service —will make recommendations to the Home Office procurement unit. Decisions on which contractor to recommend will be made in the operational line by the governor, or, if appropriate, by the responsible area manager, operational director or by the director-general.

  In each case, the governor has prepared a specification of the educational services which the prison or young offender institution will require. Some contracts may be let for individual prisons on the recommendation of the governor. In other cases, tenderers are bidding to provide educational services for a number of prisons. In these circumstances, recommendations will be made at the appropriate operational level to accept those bids which represent the best combination of quality and price to meet the needs of the prison service.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reconsider the decision to put the prison education service out to competitive tender; and if he will make it his policy that the prison education service should continue to be provided by its current staff.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The present arrangements cannot be continued because of the changes in local education authorities' responsibilities for further education from 1 April 1993. Competition is the best means of ensuring quality and value for money in the future provision of education services to prisoners.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the report from the staff college at Coombe Lodge on the prison education service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: The staff college at Coombe Lodge was asked to provide advice to the prison service on the implications for the provision of education in prisons in England and Wales of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The report contained commercially sensitive material and, in consequence, the prison service prepared and distributed widely in September 1992 a full summary of the report, together with comments on its findings. The text of the summary was agreed with the staff college and incorporated all of the report's principal recommenda-tions. I am placing copies of this summary in the Library of the House.
  480

  Foreign Prisoners
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which section or officers in his Department have special responsibilities for policy matters regarding foreign prisoners.

  Mr. Jack
  The Home Office has a number of policy responsibilities which relate to foreign prisoners. The prison service has the primary responsibility for foreign national prisoners held here and the maintenance of their family ties, and co-ordinates the interests of other Departments of the Home Office; the criminal department has responsibility for extradition and for the policy relating to the repatriation of prisoners; and the immigration service has certain responsibilities for prisoners subject to a deportation order.

  Deportation
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times he has used his power contained in section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to authorise the early release of convicted deportees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  By 13 November, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary had authorised the early release of 93 convicted deportees.

  Racial Equality Councils
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial equality councils have had funding withdrawn in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In this financial year funding has been withdawn by the Commission for Racial Equality from two racial equality councils, Gravesham and Birmingham, after effectiveness reviews. A third, Oldham, has been given notice that its funding will also be withdrawn following a similar review.

  As I explained in my letter to the hon. Member of 16 November last, although funded by grant in aid by the Home Office, the Commission for Racial Equality is an independent statutory body, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on decisions in individual cases such as these.

  Holloway Prison
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available resources to build the new visitors' centre at Her Majesty's prison Holloway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A visitors centre at Her Majesty's prison Holloway is being considered for a place in the 1995–96 major capital works building programme.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report of the interdepartmental review of the provisions governing the transfer of prisoners between United kingdom jurisdictions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have considered the report of this review in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Scotland. A copy of the report is being placed in the Library; copies are also being sent to interested organisations.

  We have decided to accept in full the report's recommendations, including the need to consider how the existing legislation might be amended to overcome the present obstacles to the permanent transfer to Northern Ireland of prisoners who have their family links there but who have been convicted of serious offences in Great Britain. In the meantime we shall implement the recommendation that greater use should be made of temporary transfers, usually for extended periods, and that the criteria for considering requests should be amended.

  In future, any request by a prisoner in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be transferred to one of the other jurisdictions either permanently, to serve the rest of his or her sentence, or temporarily to foster family ties, will normally be approved, provided that (1) the prisoner would have at least six months left to serve in the receiving jurisdiction before his or her date of release at the time of making the request; (2) the prisoner was ordinarily resident in the receiving jurisdiction prior to the current sentence; or his or her close family currently reside there and there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is the prisoner's firm intention to take up residence there on release or to receive visits and (3) both Departments concerned are reasonably satisfied that the prisoner will not, if transferred, disrupt or attempt to disrupt any prison establishment, or otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to security. A request that does not meet these conditions may nevertheless be granted where there are strong ompassionate or other compelling grounds for transfer.

  A permanent transfer may however be refused if it is considered that the prisoner's crimes were so serious as to make it inappropriate that he or she should benefit from a substantial reduction in time left to serve, if that would be a consequence of transfer.

  Requests will continue to be considered on an individual basis. To facilitate the orderly movement of small numbers of prisoners between jurisdictions, the timing of each transfer will be subject to operational and security considerations in the sentencing and receiving jurisdictions.

  Temporary transfer, where granted, may be for a period of up to 12 months, with requests for extension of this period considered on a similar basis. Temporarily transferred prisoners will be expected to comply fully with such regime requirements as the receiving Secretary of State may stipulate. Failure to agree to do so either in making the request or after transfer will normally justify refusal of the request or the immediate return of the prisoner to the sentencing jurisdiction.
  482
  My colleagues and I hope that the extended use of temporary transfer will help to alleviate the difficulties experienced by families in visiting prisoners in other jurisdictions.

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing, for each police force area in England and Wales, the number of notifiable drug offences in(a) 1979–80, (b) 1985–86, i(c) 1990–91 and (d) 1991–92 and the percentage increase between 1979–80 and 1991–92, between 1985–86 and 1991–92 and between 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: The figures given in the tables are for offences of trafficking in controlled drugs which is the only drug-related offence which is notifiable. These figures were not collected separately until 1983 so it is not possible to provide any information for earlier years.

  Notifiable offences of trafficking in controlled drugs recorded by the police by police force area

  Number of offences and percentage change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  257

  278

  8

  Bedfordshire

  48

  55

  15

  Cambridgeshire

  110

  81

  -26

  Cheshire

  251

  310

  24

  Cleveland

  73

  76

  4

  Cumbria

  65

  143

  120

  Derbyshire

  98

  153

  56

  Devon and Cornwall

  175

  233

  33

  Dorset

  188

  197

  5

  Durham

  78

  72

  -8

  Essex

  247

  241

  -2

  Gloucestershire

  64

  200

  213

  Greater Manchester

  746

  925

  24

  Hampshire

  327

  405

  24

  Hertfordshire

  156

  180

  15

  Humberside

  146

  248

  70

  Kent

  479

  631

  32

  Lancashire

  357

  377

  6

  Leicestershire

  39

  80

  105

  Lincolnshire

  116

  137

  18

  City of London

  18

  15

  -17

  Merseyside

  498

  498

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  2,174

  2,178

  —

  Norfolk

  168

  235

  40

  Northamptonshire

  81

  103

  27

  Northumbria

  142

  185

  30

  North Yorkshire

  131

  105

  -20

  Nottinghamshire

  90

  116

  29

  South Yorkshire

  165

  272

  65

  Staffordshire

  79

  123

  56

  Suffolk

  265

  256

  -3

  Surrey

  135

  97

  -28

  Sussex

  487

  542

  11

  Thames Valley

  244

  331

  36

  Warwickshire

  71

  86

  21

  West Mercia

  145

  173

  19

  West Midlands

  284

  302

  6

  West Yorkshire

  466

  916

  97

  Wiltshire

  71

  81

  14

  Dyfed-Powys

  90

  111

  23

  Gwent

  103

  92

  —11

  North Wales

  114

  137

  20

  South Wales

  238

  278

  17

  483

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Percentage change

  England and Wales

  10,279

  12,254

  19

  Notifiable offences of trafficking in controlled drugs recorded by the police by police force area

  Number of offences and percentage change

  Police force area

  April 1985 to March 1986

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  286

  278

  -3

  Bedfordshire

  39

  55

  41

  Cambridgeshire

  80

  81

  1

  Cheshire

  240

  310

  29

  Cleveland

  33

  76

  130

  Cumbria

  89

  143

  61

  Derbyshire

  58

  153

  164

  Devon and Cornwall

  339

  233

  -31

  Dorset

  218

  197

  -10

  Durham

  29

  72

  148

  Essex

  193

  241

  25

  Gloucestershire

  191

  200

  5

  Greater Manchester

  360

  925

  157

  Hampshire

  232

  405

  75

  Hertfordshire

  165

  180

  9

  Humberside

  100

  248

  148

  Kent

  361

  631

  75

  Lancashire

  183

  377

  106

  Leicestershire

  55

  80

  45

  Lincolnshire

  17

  137

  706

  City of London

  3

  15

  400

  Merseyside

  264

  498

  89

  Metropolitan Police District

  2,112

  2,178

  3

  Norfolk

  101

  235

  133

  Northamptonshire

  49

  103

  110

  Northumbria

  82

  185

  126

  North Yorkshire

  55

  105

  91

  Nottinghamshire

  110

  116

  5

  South Yorkshire

  117

  272

  132

  Staffordshire

  65

  123

  89

  Suffolk

  86

  256

  198

  Surrey

  86

  97

  13

  Sussex

  328

  542

  65

  Thames Valley

  174

  331

  90

  Warwickshire

  15

  86

  473

  West Mercia

  97

  173

  78

  West Midlands

  219

  302

  38

  West Yorkshire

  135

  916

  579

  Wiltshire

  54

  81

  50

  Dyfed-Powys

  100

  111

  11

  Gwent

  55

  92

  67

  North Wales

  96

  137

  43

  South Wales

  158

  278

  76

  Total England and Wales

  7,829

  12,254

  57

  Murder Charges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were charged with murder or attempted murder in each of the last five years; of those, how many were granted bail; and of those granted bail(a) how many were male and how many female, (b) how many were white and (c) how many were from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: Information on the number of people charged is not collected centrally. Reliable information about the
  484
  breakdown of remands into bail and custody according to offence is also not available centrally. The information that is collected does not include ethnic origin data.

  The table shows the number of people prosecuted for the offences of murder and attempted murder from 1987 to 1991, provisional.

  Number of persons prosecuted for offences of murder and attempted murder by sex 1987 to 19911

  England and Wales

  Offence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  11991

  Murder

  Male

  458

  479

  451

  421

  528

  Female

  38

  71

  55

  63

  56

  Attempted murder

  Male

  147

  208

  214

  258

  250

  Female

  19

  19

  15

  23

  23

  1 Provisional.

  Birmingham Six
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent reports he has had from the Director of Public Prosecutions into further forensic examination by West Midlands police of evidence used in the case of the Birmingham six.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The West Midlands police are continuing the reinvestigation announced on 20 March 1991 into the bombings which occurred in Birmingham on 21 November 1974. Some of the original exhibits have been submitted for further scientific examination. The Director of Public Prosecutions is being kept informed of the progress of the reinvestigation; it is her policy not to make public information gathered during the course of current criminal investigations.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest year available, how many persons were removed by the police under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to a place of safety in England and Wales.

  Mr. Yeo
  During the year ending 31 March 1990—the latest information held centrally—1,032 persons were removed from a public place by the police to a place of safety under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

WALES

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish his White Paper on Welsh local government reform.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the proposed(a) timetable for and (b) boundaries of local government reorganisation in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement on 3 March 1992, at column 171.
  485
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place the result of consultation on local government reform in Wales in the Library.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have already placed copies of responses to my statement of 3 March 1992, together with advice submitted to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government, in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Welsh local authorities, their respective associations and others in relation to his latest proposals for the boundaries of proposed unitary local authorities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Copies of responses to my statement of 3 March 1992, together with advice submitted to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government, are already in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 November,Official Report, column 145, if he will itemise in full the financial details of the changes in local government functions for 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The adjustments to the 1993–94 provisional local government revenue settlement for Wales to reflect changes in local authority functions are as follows:

  £ million

  School inspection responsibilities transferring to the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector (Wales)

  -0·9

  Further and residual higher education responsibilities transferring to the Further Education Funding Council (Wales) and Higher Education Funding Council (Wales) respectively

  -125·2

  Transfer from Department of Social Security for care in the community

  + 35·9

  Farmers (Diversification Grants)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been allocated by his Department in diversification grants to farmers in Wales in each of the last five years; and how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time jobs have been created as a direct result of such diversification grants.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The grant paid since the inception of the scheme is as follows:

  £ million

  Grant paid

  1988–89

  0·042

  1989–90

  0·315

  1990–91

  0·414

  1991–92

  0·442

  1992–93

  10·380

  1 Estimate.

  It is estimated that the projects will create 182·5 new jobs. Information is not available on the breakdown between full-time and part-time jobs.

  Leasehold Properties
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each Welsh district the total number of leasehold properties.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates from the 1986 Welsh intercensal survey are shown in the table.

  Estimated number of owner-occupied leasehold properties

  Alyn and Deeside

  210

  Colwyn

  360

  Delyn

  120

  Glyndwr

  80

  Rhuddlan

  560

  Wrexham Maelor

  50

  Carmarthen

  140

  Ceredigion

  130

  Dinefwr

  170

  Llanelli

  1,200

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  220

  South Pembrokshire

  330

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,400

  Islwyn

  3,220

  Monmouth

  1,440

  Newport

  7,140

  Torfaen

  4,130

  Aberconwy

  1,280

  Arfon

  120

  Dwyfor

  140

  Meirionnydd

  70

  Ynys Mon

  170

  Cynon Valley

  1,580

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,730

  Ogwr

  7,660

  Rhondda

  1,160

  Rhymney Valley

  5,010

  Taff-Ely

  4,220

  Brecknock

  230

  Montgomeryshire

  20

  Radnorshire

  50

  Cardiff

  15,110

  Vale of Glamorgan

  7,240

  Port Talbot

  2,070

  Lliw Valley

  2,860

  Neath

  3,230

  Swansea

  11,080

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the present financial situation of each of the proposed health trusts and the expected situation at the end of the financial year; and what measures the new trusts intend to take to maintain their financial viability and service position.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department does not, as a matter of routine, receive information about the financial position of individual district health authority-managed units at the level of detail requested. However, one of the key criteria for NHS trust status is financial soundness; and the financial position of applicants was therefore considered carefully prior to my right hon. Friend's recent decision to establish a further 13 NHS trusts in Wales with an operational date of 1 April 1993. In the meantime, the respective health authorities retain full responsibility for the proper financial management of the units concerned.
  487
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what system of communication he has in place with the recently announced health trusts to ensure that no problems arise in the transition out of health authority administration with regard to the level of patient treatment and financial viability.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Officials will continue to maintain close contact with the newly established NHS trusts which become formally operational on 1 April 1993. In the meantime, the respective health authorities retain responsibility for financial management and patient care services.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the possible closure of(a) St. Mary's day hospital, Llandough, (b) the West 2 ward at Llandough hospital and (c) Powys ward at Sully hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Business Development Centre
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 November,Official Report, column 144–45, if he will ensure that the new business development centre will be self-financing and not require any public subsidy.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The business development centre will include, inter alia, accommodation for staff from the Welsh Development Agency and from the North East Wales training and enterprise council to provide a range of services to businesses in the area. Some services will be provided as part of Government support for business and training and changes will be levied for other services.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the report of the All-Wales Forum on Teacher Training for the National Curriculum in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have today published the report of the forum entitled "Strategy for In-Service Teacher Training in Wales". I am grateful to the forum for its work and have accepted its advice in full. A copy of the report is being sent to all those involved in the in-service training of teachers in Wales and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. I will be taking a keen interest in the action taken on the report recommendations.

  The forum has recommended working group arrange-ments to take forward its work on the exchange of ideas and co-ordination of proposals for in-service training. The work of the forum advisory group is therefore complete and it has been dissolved.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Regional Growth
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the average annual regional growth rates by standard region for the period 1979 to the present date.
  488
  Mr. Portillo
  The information is not available in the form requested. Growth rates are normally calculated on the basis of estimates of gross domestic product at constant prices, but regional GDP figures are calculated only at current prices since there are no regional price deflators available.

  The November 1991 edition of "Economic Trends" contained the latest estimates of regional GDP for the years 1980–90, and estimates for earlier years are available from the House of Commons Library.

  Quotas
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Kingdom has subscribed the increase in its quota with the International Monetary Fund under its ninth general review of quotas.

  Mr. Nelson
  Yes. The ninth quota review recommended an increase in the United Kingdom quota from 6,194·0 million to 7,414·6 million special drawing rights, as part of a general increase in quotas to allow the IMF to continue its essential work in assisting countries with balance of payments problems, particularly in the developing world and, increasingly now, eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, to undertake economic adjustment to contribute both to their own growth and to the successful functioning of the international monetary system.

  The quota increases under this review have been delayed for some time, but the United Kingdom was one of the first countries to vote in favour of them, in 1990. The subscription of an extra 1,220·6 million special drawing rights to the United Kingdom quota, in accordance with the International Monetary Fund (Increase in Subscription) Order 1990, has today been paid from the National Loans Fund. Subscribing a quota increase to the IMF is not public expenditure. The transactions result in a credit position with the IMF as part of our reserves.

  Group Relief
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria the Inland Revenue applies when deciding whether to accept a late claim for group relief.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has applied criteria set out in a reply given by the then Financial Secretary on 10 December 1985 at column 592. These criteria covered both claims for group relief and elections for continuation treatment on a change in partnership. This has given rise to some uncertainty in practice. From today, a late claim for group relief will be accepted where it can be shown that:
  —the Inland Revenue contributed materially to the failure to submit a timely claim, for example by misleading the claimant and failing to rectify the error before the statutory time limit expired; or
  —for reasons beyond his or her control, for example due to a debilitating illness, a person vitally concerned in the making of a claim was not available at a crucial time; or
  —for reasons beyond the claimant company's control or its agent's control, the need for the claim could not have been perceived before the time limit expired.

  In each case, a claim will only be accepted where it can be shown that, although late, it was made as soon as reasonably possible in all the circumstances. A late claim will not be accepted where the delay is attributable to:
  —oversight or negligence on the part of a claimant company or its agent; or
  —failure, without good reason, to compute the necessary figure; or

  489
  —the desire to avoid commitment pending clarification of the effects of making a claim.

  A claimant company wishing to have a late claim considered under these guidelines should apply to the inspector of taxes dealing with its affairs as soon as reasonably possible in the circumstances.

  Late Elections
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which the Board of Inland Revenue will be prepared to consider accepting late elections under the provisions of section 113(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As explained in the reply given by the then Financial Secretary on 10 December 1985, at column 592, in cases where no statutory discretion is given to the Board of Inland Revenue to extend a time limit for a claim or election, it must be assumed that Parliament's intention is that the limit should be applied strictly. The number of cases in which it would be appropriate to exercise discretion under the board's powers of care and management, provided in the Taxes Management Act 1970, is correspondingly limited.

  Every such case has to be considered on its own merits, and in the light of the factors relevant to the circumstances in which the claim was made late. However, there would be a presumption in favour of admitting an election under section 113(2) of the 1988 Act which is made as soon as is reasonably possible in all the circumstances, but after the statutory time limit has expired, if the reason for the election being late was one of the following:-
  some relevant and uncorrected error on the part of the Inland Revenue has had the effect of misleading the partners or their agent about whether the requirements of the legislation had been met; or

  £ million

  Year

  Gross contribution before abatement or refunds and public sector receipts

  Negotiated refunds

  Abatement

  Net contribution after abatement refunds and public sector receipts

  1973

  181

  —

  —

  102

  1974

  179

  —

  —

  29

  1975

  342

  —

  —

  -56

  1976

  463

  —

  —

  167

  1977

  737

  —

  —

  369

  1978

  1,348

  —

  —

  822

  1979

  1,606

  —

  —

  947

  1980

  1,767

  98

  —

  706

  1981

  2,174

  693

  —

  397

  1982

  2,863

  1,019

  —

  606

  1983

  2,976

  807

  —

  647

  1984

  3,201

  528

  —

  656

  1985

  3,940

  61

  166

  1,808

  1986

  4,493

  —

  1,701

  572

  1987

  5,202

  —

  1,153

  1,721

  1988

  5,138

  —

  1,594

  1,362

  1989

  5,585

  —

  1,154

  2,315

  1990

  6,355

  —

  1,697

  2,475

  1991

  5,806

  —

  2,497

  545

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the public expenditure total has been spent on benefits related to unemployment for each financial year from 1979–80; and what is the latest estimate for 1992–93 and the expenditure forecast for 1993–94.
  490
  at a crucial time, one of the required signatories was not available for unforeseeable reasons (eg because of serious illness); or the agent of a signatory was similarly not available and there was no one else who could reasonably be expected to stand in the agent's shoes: or

  there was some other difficulty about obtaining all the required signatures to the election within the time limit, and the Inland Revenue had, before the time limit expired, both been clearly notified that each of the signatories had individually decided to make an election; and been given the reasons why the election could not be made within the time limit.

  The board will not admit elections if they were made after the expiry of the time limit because of oversight or negligence on the part of a partner or his or her agent; or because one of the parties to the election temporarily refused to sign it; or because there was a deliberate decision to delay the making of the election because its effect on the taxation liabilities of the relevant parties was not clear by the time the time limit expired.

  European Community
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the sums paid by the United Kingdom to the EC, the rebate and the net cost to the United Kingdom for each year since 1973.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: Details of the United Kingdom's gross contribution, the refunds and abatement and of the net contribution after public sector receipts on the European Community Budget, for the years 1973 to 1989 were contained in a written answer given by the Financial Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk. North (Mr. Howell) on 20 March 1991, at columns 110–12. Details for 1990 and 1991 were published in June 1992 in the "Statement on the 1992 Community Budget", Cm. 1948. The table reproduces the information.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 November 1992, c. 31–32]: The figure for social security benefits to the unemployed for 1984–85 should have been £6,320 million, and not £5,320 million as previously stated.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fish Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) salmon and (b) grilse were removed from the River Bush by his Department in each year since his Department first leased the fishery; what the sale of these fish realised in each year; and what effect their removal had on the number of smelts descending the river in subsequent years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Separate figures for the number of salmon and grilse removed from the River Bush are not available. The available information is as follows:

  Number and value of salmon and grilse removed from River Bush

  Year

  Number offish removed from river

  Number sold commercially

  Value £

  Wild origin

  Hatchery origin

  £

  1972

  Not available

  1,917

  6,536

  1973

  Not available

  492

  1,830

  1974

  Not available

  226

  685

  1975

  Not available

  403

  1,711

  1976

  Not available

  377

  2,345

  1977

  Not available

  2,321

  4,636

  1978

  Not available

  219

  1,889

  1979

  Not available

  300

  3,393

  1980

  Not available

  839

  5,178

  1981

  Not available

  311

  2,536

  1982

  Not available

  32

  246

  1983

  Not available

  —

  —

  1984

  195

  20

  3

  33

  1985

  557

  73

  —

  —

  Numbers of salmon and grilse landed by commercial fishermen in the Foyle Fisheries Commission area (both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland)

  Type of engine

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Drift Nets

  12,587

  17,321

  55,108

  33,850

  20,379

  34,034

  Draft Nets

  5,434

  16,176

  31,090

  10,199

  5,437

  8,223

  Fixed Engines

  47

  79

  330

  371

  —

  —

  Londonderry Fishery

  415

  763

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  18,483

  34,339

  86,528

  44,420

  25,816

  42,257

  1 To date.

  Total number of salmon and grilse landed by commercial fishermen in the Fisheries Conservancy Board area

  Type of engine

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Boxes and Fixed Estuary and Tidal Draft Nets

  4,653

  6,828

  5,167

  5,265

  2,091

  413

  Tidal Draft Nets

  69

  114

  74

  12

  2

  32

  Tidal Drift Nets

  248

  675

  812

  252

  838

  1,524

  Tidal Bag Nets

  5,924

  6,140

  12,197

  4,685

  4,582

  5,957

  Total

  10,894

  13,757

  18,250

  10.214

  7,513

  7,926

  1 To date.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over what period of year is there are available to him records of the numbers of salmon, grilse and sea trout caught in Northern Ireland waters; and where such records are available for inspection or purchase.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the Foyle Fisheries Commission area, records are available since 1960. The information may be inspected in the Commission's offices at 8 Victoria road, Londonderry BT47 2AB.
  492

  Year

  Number offish removed from river

  Number sold commercially

  Value

  Wild origin

  Hatchery origin

  £

  1986

  101

  778

  —

  —

  1987

  81

  674

  —

  —

  1988

  10

  990

  —

  —

  1989

  102

  309

  —

  —

  1990

  93

  413

  —

  —

  1991

  329

  1,060

  —

  —

  1992

  212

  701

  153

  188

  1 Grilse of hatchery origin which, after scientific examination, were found to be of marketable quality.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many salmon and grilse have been taken by commercial nets of each type, in Northern Ireland waters in each of the last five years and the current year to date; how many such fish taken by commercial fishermen, and sea netted fish, were landed in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Irish Republic; and of all fish taken, how many were taken from the Foyle system.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following tables give the available information. No figures are available for landings in the Republic of Ireland, except that for statistical purposes, half of what is taken in the Foyle Fisheries Commission area is assumed to have been landed in Northern Ireland and half in the Republic of Ireland.

  In the Fisheries Conservancy Board area records exist from 1968 and may be inspected at the offices of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries Division, Hut 5, Castle Grounds, Stormont, Belfast BT4 3PW.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what investigations he has carried out to determine the number and percentage of salmon and grilse entering each of the(a) Foyle river system, (b) the Bush system and (c) other rivers in Northern Ireland which support runs of such fish are (i) one sea winter fish, (ii) two sea winter fish and (iii) three or more sea winter fish.
  493
  Mr. Hanley
  The only investigations of this type are carried out on the River Bush, and the fish are divided into two classes—grilse which are one sea winter fish; and salmon which are two or more sea winter fish. Examination of samples of fish from the River Bush over the last 10 years indicates the following proportions of salmon to grilse:

  Smolt year

  Per cent, returning to river as:

  Class

  Grilse

  Salmon

  1980

  90

  10

  1981

  91

  9

  1982

  90

  10

  1983

  1

  1

  1984

  81

  19

  1985

  80

  20

  1986

  83

  17

  1987

  96

  4

  1988

  82

  18

  1989

  87

  13

  1 Incomplete due to electric barrier breakdown.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Department of Agriculture's original lease for the angling on the River Bush began; when it was renewed; when the lease ends; and if he will publish a list of the papers and reports published, and where they may be purchased or examined, of the work on this fishery carried out by the Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  The lease began on 1 March 1972, for a period of 30 years and is therefore not due for renewal until 1 March 2003.

  A list of publications is as follows. These are available for examination at the DANI Fisheries research laboratory, 38 Castleroe road, Coleraine.

  CROZIER, W. W. 1986. Enhancement of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the River Bush. Royal Irish Academy, National Committee for Biology, Hydrobiology Sub-Committee, Annual Conference of the Freshwater Research Group, Dublin 25–26 March 1986.

  CROZIER, W. W. 1988. Difference in the proportion of microtagged and finclipped Atlantic salmon released from and returned to the R. Bush, N. Ireland. ICES C. M. 1988/M:5 (mimeo).

  CROZIER, W. W. 1989. Homewater exploitation rates on microtagged salmon returning to the R. Bush in 1988. ICES C. M.1989/M2 (mimeo).

  CROZIER, W. W. 1990. DANI Freshwater and Environmental Research. The Ulster Angler, 10: 5–6.

  CROZIER, W. W. 1990. Report on the Workshop on the effects of Restocking and Cage Escapees on Resident. Wild Salmon Stocks, held at Sherkin Island Marine Station, Cork, 23–25 May 1990. Sherkin Comment, 5 (1990).

  CROZIER, W. W. 1990. The effects of restocking and cage escapees on resident wild salmon stocks. Ecological concerns. Paper at Conference on the Effects of Restocking and Cage Escapees on Resident Wild Salmon Stocks. Sherkin Island Marine Station, Cork, 23–26 May 1990.

  CROZIER, W. W. 1990. Electrofishing and Stock Assessment. Paper at the Institute of Fisheries Management (NI Branch) Training Course at Movanagher Fish Farm.30 March 1990.

  CROZIER, W. W. 1990. Homewater exploitation rates on microtagged salmon returning to the R. Bush in 1989. ICES C.M. 1990/M:19 (mimeo).

  CROZIER, W. W. 1991. The identification of fish farm escapees in N. Ireland fisheries. Methods currently in use and future development of techniques. ICES Workshop on Identification of Fish Farm Escapees and Wild Salmon, Norway, ICES C.M. 1991/M:3 (mimeo).

  CROZIER, W. W. 1991. Homewater exploitation on microtagged salmon returning to the R. Bush in 1990. ICES C.M. 1991/M:20 (mimeo).
  494
  CROZIER, W. W. and KENNEDY G. J. A. 1987. Marine survival and exploitation of R. Bush hatchery salmon (Salmo salar L.) as assessed by microtag returns to 1986. ICES C.M. 1097/M:39 (mimeo).

  CROZIER, W. W. and KENNEDY G. J. A. 1988. Marine survival and homewater exploitation of R. Bush wild and hatchery-reared salmon (Salmo salar L.) derived from microtag returns in 1987. ICES C.M. 1988/M:4 (mimeo).

  CROZIER, W. W. and KENNEDY G. J. A. 1989. The River Bush as an index river. ICES C.M. 1989/M:3 (mimeo).

  CROZIER, W.W. and KENNEDY, G. J. A. 1991. What proportion of stocks are caught by commercial fisheries: Exploitation of R. Bush salmon. Working paper for the Joint Atlantic Salmon Trust' Royal Irish Academy Workshop on "The Measurement and Evaluation of the Exploitation of Atlantic Salmon". Dublin April 8–10, 1991.

  CROZIER, W. W. and KENNEDY, G. J. A. 1991. Salmon research on the R. Bush. In: Steer, M. W. (ed) 1991 Irish Rivers: Biology and Management, pp 29–46 Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

  CROZIER, W. W. and MOFFETT, I. J. J. 1989. Amount and distribution of biochemical-genetic variation among wild populations and a hatchery stock of Atlantic salmon Sulmo salar L., from north-east Ireland. Journal of Fish Biology, 34:665–677.

  CROZIER, W. W. and MOFFETT, I. J. J. 1990. Inheritance of allozymes in Atlantic Salmon (Sahno salar L.) Aquaculture, 88: 253–262.

  CROZIER, W. W. and MOFFETT, I. J. J. 1991. Application of genetic marking to assess supplementary stockings of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in a Northern Ireland stream. Poster paper at the Fisheries Society of the British Isles Symposium on Biochemical Genetics and Taxonomy of Fish, Queen's University, Belfast, 22–26 July 1991.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. (1981a). The reliability of quantitative juvenile salmon estimates using electro-fishing techniques. Proc. Atlantic Sal. Trust Workshop, Windermere, 1981, 11pp.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. (1981b). Some observations on the inter-relationships of juvenile salmon (Salmo salar L.) and trout (Salmo trutta L.). Proc. 2nd Brit. Freshw. Fish. Conf. 1981, 143–149.

  KENNEDY G. J. A. (1983). Some observations on Salmonid ecology in upland streams. Series (a), No. 23, 20–23. Irish Fisheries Investigations.

  KENNEDY G. J. A. (1984a). Factors affecting the survival and distribution of salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocked in upland trout (Salmo trutta L.) streams in Northern Ireland. Symposium on Stock Enhancement in the Management of Freshwater Fisheries, EIFAC, Budapest 1982, EIFAC Tech. Pap. (42), Suppl. Vol. I, 227–242.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. (1984b). Evaluation of techniques for classifying habitats for juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Atlantic Salmon Trust Workshop on Stock Enhancement. University of Surrey, 9–11 April, 1984, 23p.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. (1984b). The ecology of salrnonid habitat re-instatement following river drainage schemes. Institute of Fisheries Management (N.I. Branch) Study Course, Publ. Institute of Continuing Education, University of Ulster, 1–13.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. (1985). River pollution—How much does it cost fisheries? DANI Advisers and Lecturers Conference, Loughry College of Agriculture and Food Technology, 14 pp.

  KENNEDY G. J. A. (1986). Silage effluent pollution—costs and prevention. Agriculture in Northern Ireland, Vol. 60 (12), 402–406.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. (1987). Predation by cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo L.) on wild and hatchery salmon smolts (Salmo salar L.). ICES C. M. 1987/M41.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. 1988. Stock enhancement of Atlantic salmon. In: Atlantic Sahnon: Planning for the Future. (Eds D. Mills and D. Piggins). Proceedings of the Third International Atlantic Salmon Symposium, Biarritz, France, 21–23 October 1986, 345–372.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and CROZIER, W. W. 1988. Scientifically based approaches to management in the context of existing fisheries: Use of the R. Bush as an index river to provide input data for modelling. ICES C. M. 1988/M:3 (mimeo).

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and CROZIER, W. W. 1989. Salmon enhancement on the River Bush. Proceedings of the Institute

  495
  of Fisheries Management, 20th Annual Study Course at Galway Regional Technical College, Galway, 12–14 September 1989.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and CROZIER, W. W. 1991. Stock-recruitment data from the River Bush. Working paper for the Joint Atlantic Salmon Trust' Royal Irish Academy Workshop on "The Measurement and Evaluation of the Exploitation of Atlantic Salmon", Dublin, April 8–10, 1991.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and CROZIER, W. W. 1991. Strategies for the rehabilitation of salmon rivers: post-project appraisal. In: Mills, D. (ed) 1991. Strategies for the rehabilitation of salmon rivers. pp 46–62. Atlantic Salmon Trust, The Institute of Fisheries Management, and the Linnean Society of London.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and CROZIER, W. W. 1991. Juvenile Atlantic Salmon-Production and Prediction. International Symposium on the Production of Juvenile Atlantic Salmon in Natural Waters, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. John's Newfoundland, Canada, 25–27 June, 1991.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and J. E. GREER 1988. Predation by cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo L.) on the salmonid populations of an Irish river. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, 19: 159–170.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and P. M. JOHNSTON, 1986. A review of salmon (Salmo salar L.) research on the River Bush. Proceedings of the Institute of Fisheries Management 17th Annual Study Course. University of Ulster, 9–11 September 1986. 49–69.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and STRANGE, C. D. (1980). Population changes after two years of salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocking in upland trout (Salmo trutta L.) streams. J. Fish. Biol. 17, 577–586.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and STRANGE, C. D. (1981a). Comparative survival from salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocking with eyed and green ova in an upland stream. Fish. Mgmt. 12, 43–48.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and STRANGE, C. D. (1981b). Efficiency of Electric Fishing for salmonids in relation to river width. Fish. Mgmt. 12, 55–60.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and STRANGE, C. D. (1982). The distribution of salmonids in upland streams in relation to depth and gradient. J. Fish. Biol. 20, 579–591.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and STRANGE, C. D. (1986). The effects of Intra and Inter-specific competition on the survival and growth of stocked juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and resident trout (Salmo trutta L.) in an upland stream. J. Fish. Biol. 28, 479–489.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and STRANGE, C. D. (1986a). The effects of Intra and Inter-specific competition on the distribution of stocked juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in relation to depth and gradient in an upland trout (Salmo trutta L.) stream. J. Fish. Biol. 29, 199–214.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A., STRANGE, C. D. and JOHNSTON, P. M. 1991. Evaluation of Carlin tagging as a mark-recapture technique for estimating total river runs of salmon smolts, Salmo salar L. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, 22: 363–368.

  MOFFETT, I. J. J. and CROZIER, W. W. 1991. Genetic marker identification in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) by electrophoretic analysis of low risk tissues. Journal of Fish Biology, 39: 609–611.

  STIRLING, J. and KENNEDY, G. J. A. 1987. Preliminary investigations on fin sizes in wild and ranched salmon as a discriminate factor in R. Bush stocks. ICES C. M. 1987/M40.

  STRANGE, C. D. and KENNEDY, G. J. A. 1981. Stomach flushing of salmonids: A simple and effective technique for the removal of the stomach contents. Fisheries Management, 12: 9–15.

  STRANGE, C. D. and KENNEDY, G. J. A. 1982. Evaluation of fluorescent pigment marking of brown trout (Salmi) trutta L.) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Fisheries Management 13:89–95.

  Publications in press, submitted, or in preparation:

  CROZIER, W. W. (in press). Maintenance of genetic variation in hatchery stocks of Atlantic salmon: Experiences from the R. Bush. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management.

  CROZIER, W. W. and KENNEDY, G. J. A. (in press). Marine survival of wild and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon from the
  496
  R. Bush, Northern Ireland. 4th International Atlantic Salmon Symposium, St. Andrews, Canada. Blackwell Scientific Publications.

  CROZIER, W. W. and KENNEDY, G. J. A. (in prep). Marine exploitation of Atlantic salmon from the R. Bush, Northern Ireland. Fisheries Research.

  CROZIER, W. W. and MOFFATT, I. J. J. (submitted). Application of genetic marking to assess supplementary stocking of Atlantic salmon in a Northern Irish stream. Journal of Fish Biology.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. (in prep). Evaluation of production from nursery habitat in the British Isles. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.

  KENNEDY, G. J. A. and CROZIER, W. W. (in prep). River management in relation to salmonid recruitment. National Rivers Authority Conference, University of Leicester, 1993.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has that(a) increasing numbers, (b) an increasing percentage of salmon and grilse are entering the (i) Foyle system, (ii) the Bush system and (iii) other rivers in Northern Ireland which support runs of these fish.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records of the numbers of wild salmon entering rivers are available only for the Mourne system, River Faughan and River Bush and are as follows. It is not possible to provide figures indicating the percentage of the total run.

  Year

  Mourne system (Sion Mills)

  River Faughan (Campsie)

  River Bush

  1973

  n/a

  n/a

  2,614

  1974

  n/a

  n/a

  3,438

  1975

  n/a

  n/a

  3,366

  1976

  2,259

  2,040

  3,124

  1977

  2,419

  2,625

  1,775

  1978

  5,057

  2,587

  1,621

  1979

  2,226

  3,262

  1,820

  1980

  3,146

  3,288

  2,863

  1981

  2,399

  3,772

  1,539

  1982

  4,755

  2,909

  1,571

  1983

  1,271

  2,410

  1,030

  1984

  1,877

  2,116

  1—

  1985

  8,149

  9,077

  2,443

  1986

  6,295

  4,915

  2,930

  1987

  2,322

  1—

  2,530

  1988

  7,171

  3,220

  2,832

  1989

  8,526

  8,919

  1,029

  1990

  11,899

  6,883

  1,850

  1991

  7,250

  4,843

  2,358

  1 Incomplete due to electric barrier breakdown.

  Benefits
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for the last 12 months for which figures are available, the number of claims for benefit which were(a) sent to a social fund inspector for review, (b) upheld at the review stage and (c) sent back for review; and if he will also show how many decisions were overturned.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures for the period 1 October 1991 to 30 September 1992, which have been provided by the Office of the Social Fund Commissioner, are as follows:

  Number

  (a) applications for review by inspectors

  1,693

  (b) numbers upheld

  1,013

  (c) numbers referred back to social fund officers

  611

  (d) decisions substituted by inspectors

  424

  497
  The figures at (b), (c) and (d) include a number of cases in which the application for review were received before 1 October 1991.

  Expenditure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he now expects to make a detailed statement of the changes in Government expenditure in Northern Ireland which will result from the autumn statement.

  Mr. Mates
  A statement will be made soon as the distribution of resources among services has been determined. This should be no later than the week beginning 7 December.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Bournemouth Central Station
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grant aid is to be available to restore Bournemouth central station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government's grant schemes for historic buildings are administered by English Heritage. It is able to grant aid works to outstanding historic buildings (which for all practical purposes are those listed as grade I or grade II*) and to other buildings in conservation areas. As Bournemouth central station is listed grade II, and is not a conservation area, it is not eligible for assistance. English Heritage has reviewed the listing of the station but has concluded that upgrading would not be justified.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will state the qualifications of the GAH Group to carry out the consultant's report on a national lottery; and if he will describe the process by which it was selected from the tenders received.

  Mr. Brooke
  The GAH group was the best qualified in terms of experience, expertise and cost. Sealed tenders were received on 3 August 1992. Each consultancy made a presentation to a tender board, which scrutinised the bids and made the final decision.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 43, how many firms were invited to tender for the contract of advising him on the impact of a national lottery on the football pools industry and charitable donations.

  Mr. Brooke
  Five firms were invited to tender.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 43, what policy considerations he used on which to base his choice of firms to be invited to tender for the contract of advising him on the impact of a national lottery on the football pools industry and charitable donations.

  Mr. Brooke
  The five firms invited to tender were chosen for their expertise and experience. In addition, the Department ensured that none of them was already advising any other client on the national lottery.

EMPLOYMENT

  Transfer ad Redundancy Right
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has to apply the provisions of clause 26 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill to(a) local authorities, (b) compulsory competitive tendering, (c) existing contracts and (d) casual contracts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 19 November 1992 at columns 338–39.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will set out in a table the employment change for Great Britain, and by region, between June 1979 to June 1991 with, in separate columns, the(a) percentage change in employees, (1)) percentage change in employees and the self-employed together and (c) total change.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is as follows:

  Changes in employment in standard regions June 1979 to June 1992

  Per cent.

  Employees in employment

  Employees and self-employed

  Civilian workforce in employment

  South East1

  -5

  -1

  0

  East Anglia

  + 11

  + 17

  + 18

  South West

  + 7

  + 15

  + 16

  West Midlands

  -13

  -8

  -7

  East Midlands

  -1

  + 4

  + 5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -8

  -3

  -1

  North West

  -13

  -9

  -8

  North

  -14

  -10

  -8

  Wales

  -8

  -3

  -1

  Scotland

  -6

  -2

  0

  Great Britain

  -6

  -1

  0

  1 Including Greater London which became a separately identifiable standard region in September 1981. A comparison cannot therefore be made between 1979 and the current date.

  Job Clubs
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what access to job vacancies exists for people attending job clubs in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Jane Kennedy, dated 23 November 1992.
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about what access to job vacancies exists for people attending Jobclubs in the Liverpool travel to work area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Until recently Jobclubs in the Liverpool travel to work area received copies of vacancies from Jobcentres in their locality as well as providing access to job vacancy advertisements in local newspapers. Jobclub members are also

  499
  encouraged to make speculative approaches to employers and most people find jobs this way. The circulation of vacancies from the Jobcentres ceased at the beginning of November because very few Jobclub members were finding work by this method.
  However, following representations from local people it has been agreed that the service will be reinstated where a Jobclub specifically requests it.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Operation Granby
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's fraud squad completed its investigations concerning the chartering of merchant vessels in support of Operation Granby; what conclusions were reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Papers were passed to the Crown prosecution service on 6 November 1992. Investigations continue into certain aspects however and further comment would not be appropriate at this time.

  Vanguard
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems with welds related to the nuclear reactor were reported in the two weeks before the submarine Vanguard left VSEL Barrow on 23 October for contractor's sea trials; what action was taken by the contractor and his Department; and on what date the members of the Nuclear Powered Warship Safety Committee were informed of the situation.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to comment on the detailed material condition of individual nuclear submarines. I can confirm, however, that as part of normal safety procedures, Vanguard underwent a rigorous safety assessment and a thorough quality assurance audit prior to being cleared for departure on sea trials. The Government place the highest priority on nuclear safety and no submarine would be permitted to go to sea unless we were satisfied that it was safe to do so.

  Iraqi Defence Industry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on the Iraqi defence industry to the hon. Member for South Shields on 18 November,Official Report, column 251, if he will make a statement about the conclusions of his Department's study into the Iraqi defence industry and its military procurement activity; when this study was concluded; and whether he intends to publish it.

  Mr. Aitken
  Iraq's defence industry and military procurement activity are subjects of continuing study in my Department. The large scale of Iraq's military production capability and the extensive nature of its international procurement activity have been revealed in the studies we have undertaken. Security considerations preclude the publication of such studies.
  500

  Eaglescliffe Royal Naval Stores Depot
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the names and grades of all officials who accompanied the Minister of State for the Armed Forces at his meeting with trade union representatives at RNSD Eaglescliffe on 18 November.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Apart from my private secretary and representatives of local management at the depot, three departmental officials were present during my meeting with trade union representatives at the Royal Naval stores depot Eaglescliffe on 18 November: Mr. G. E. Miller (grade 4), principal director of supplies and transport (stores and victualling), Mr. J. Read (grade 5), director Naval support command implementation and Mr. B. P. Neale (grade 6), head of management strategy, secretariat (fleet support).

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date, by whom, and in what form the request was made by trade union representatives at RNSD Eaglescliffe that hon. and right hon. Members and representatives of local councils should not be present in the depot during the visit on 18 November by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Defence Contracts (Payment)
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to expedite the settlement and payment of defence contracts, so as to enable contractors to make prompt payment to their subcontractors; and what is his latest estimate of the amounts outstanding on unsettled accounts for work done.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has a long-standing policy of paying its bills promptly. We normally settle our contract payments within 30 days of receiving invoices, and we will soon be introducing a two-week billing cycle with payment by the bankers automated clearing service.

  Payment arrangements and details of outstanding amounts between contractors and their subcontractors are a matter for the companies concerned. However, since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of 10 March, Official Report, column 753, we have included a clause in all new defence contracts requiring prime contractors to pay their subcontractors within a specified period from receipt of a valid invoice.

  On Monday 26 October my Department's central bill-paying organisation held valid bills for some £210 million. We expect these to be paid by 2 November.

HEALTH

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her latest estimate of the cost to date of implementing the NHS reforms.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of the sums provided to date are given in the table. Figures for the practice fund management allowance in 1991–92 and 1992–93 correct those published in the departmental report earlier this year (Cm. 1913).
  501

  NHS review expenditure

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  11992–93

  HCHS Revenue

  100 Consultants initiative

  3

  27

  37

  36

  Resource management initiative, clinical audit and IT

  21

  65

  87

  103

  Enhancement of personnel, finance and other key staff functions and training

  18

  67

  87

  93

  NHS Trusts—mainly consultation and start up costs

  —

  13

  22

  34

  Family Health Service Authorities' Administration

  —

  29

  36

  36

  Other—mainly quality initiatives, pilot projects and capital charges

  17

  30

  34

  37

  Total Revenue

  —

  229

  303

  339

  HCHS capital

  Resource management initiative, medical audit and IT

  13

  55

  65

  28

  Quality initiative

  —

  5

  5

  5

  Total Capital

  13

  —

  70

  33

  FHS

  Practice funds management allowance

  —

  6

  14

  27

  Total FHS

  —

  6

  14

  27

  CFS/DH Admin

  DH staff and consultancy costs related to the Review

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Prescription Pricing Authority

  —

  9

  4

  4

  Post Royal Assent Publicity

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Total CFS/DH Admin/FHS Admin

  7

  12

  4

  4

  Total NHS Review

  79

  306

  391

  403

  1Figures for 1991–92 are provisional and figures for 1992–93 are estimates.

  Staff Recruitment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the utility of personality questionnaires in the recruitment of senior NHS staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Selection criteria for the recruitment of senior staff in the national health service are a matter for each individual NHS employer.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring is carried out by her Department of overspending in the current year by health service authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  Internal monitoring information is collected to assist in the management of the national health service. This includes information on current spending against plans and centrally laid down objectives. Information collected in respect of district health authorities is generally aggregated to a regional level.

  Prescription Budgets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the final out-turn figures for indicative prescription budgets in 1991–92 in each family health service authority area and NHS region; if she will also express those figures as a percentage of the projected budget; what are the indicative budgets for 1992–93 in each FHSA area and NHS region; and if she will express those figures as percentages of(a) the projected budget and (b) the out-turn budgets for 1991–92.
  502
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Ultra-violet Radiation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure by medium on advice on the dangers of over-exposure to UV radiation for the current financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure by the Health Education Authority, which is funded by the Department, on the dangers of over-exposure to existing levels of UV radiation for the current financial year was as follows:

  £

  Leaflets and promotional material

  32,500

  Posters, factcards and feature articles

  6,900

  Public Information Booklet

  4,100

  General support costs estimates at 25 per cent. (This includes staff time, responding to enquiries etc)

  10,875

  TOTAL

  54,375

  In addition, the Department issued an information note to health professionals in respect of which no separate costing is available.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) what information she has concerning the extent of the use in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) overseas in products used in the United Kingdom, of cell-lines front the tissue of aborted babies in the production of (i) polio vaccine, (ii) rubella vaccine, (iii) other vaccines and (iv) other medical and pharmaceutical products;
  503
  (2) what guidance is issued by her Department concerning the use of cell lines from the tissue of aborted babies in the production of vaccines and other medical products;

  (3) if she will give a breakdown by country of manufacture of those medical, pharmaceutical and other products which are currently approved for use in the United Kingdom and which have been produced using cell lines from the tissue of aborted babies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Human cell lines are used in the manufacture of polio, rubella and hepatitis A vaccines. The cell line MRCS developed by the Medical Research Council was isolated in the early 1970s from the lungs of a single foetus. Our understanding is that all current needs, and those for the foreseeable future, will be met from this one isolation.

  The vaccines may be manufactured in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, France or the United States of America. We are not aware of other licensed products using human cell lines.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and which NHS hospitals in England providing day-care abortion services are offering early medical abortion services in the first nine weeks of pregnancy with mifepristone and prostaglandin.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information in the form requested is not collected centrally. Abortion notifications between July, when the drug was licensed, and December 1991, the latest period for which figures are available, show that the mifepristone and prostaglandin method was used in 19 national health service hospitals in England and Wales. Identifying information derived from the notification form, including the names of the hospitals concerned, may not be generally disclosed, except in the circumstances specified in regulation 5 of the Abortion Regulations 1991.

  Police Vetting
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued during the past 12 months to local authorities' social service departments who because of staff shortages may need to employ persons not yet cleared by the established police vetting procedure.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Incontinence
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration was given to the inclusion of treatment of incontinence in the establishment of health targets in "The Health of the Nation" document.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In reaching the decision, after careful consideration, to select five key areas at this time, it was recognised that there were other strong candidates for key area status. However, in the Government's view they required further development and research before national targets could be set—rehabilitation services for people with a physical disability, embracing continence services, was an example. The strategy will be kept under review and further key areas may be added in due course.

  Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adopted people have applied for help in tracing their birth parents since 1976.
  504
  Mr. Yeo
  Since November 1976, 47,668 adopted persons have applied to the Registrar General under the provisions of section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976 for access to their original birth records. Since May 1991 the Adoption Contact register has been available for adopted persons seeking to trace their natural relatives, by entry on the register. On 17 November 1992 a total of 1,804 adopted persons have had their names entered.

  Talking Books
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy on support for the talking book services for the blind.

  Mr. Yeo
  Talking book services for visually impaired people are largely provided by voluntary organisations, although some social services departments may provide this service or assist a person to obtain it. Audio-cassettes are now available in many local authority libraries.

  Older People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what involvement her Department will take during the 1993 European year of older people and solidarity between generations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department, in co-operation with the Department of Social Security has overall co-ordinating responsibility for the European Year in the United Kingdom and we are now well advanced with our plans. Following consultation with a wide range of national voluntary and professional bodies, statutory authorities and other relevant Government Departments, a group has been set up to advise on the conduct, promotion and evaluation of the programme. The group involves representatives of organisations reflecting the interests of older people, including the National Pensioners' Convention, and will take direct account wherever possible of the views and preferences of older people themselves. The programme in the United Kingdom will focus on four major themes:

  Combatting 'ageism' and promoting positive images of ageing;

  Volunteering;

  Health promotion and active leisure, including remaining mentally active;

  Social integration, including problems of isolation and loneliness, information needs, housing, transport and community care issues.

  Four task groups have also been set up to examine each of these themes and put forward specific proposals, and to implement them once agreed, with particular reference to intergenerational and multicultural aspects.

  There will be two elements to the year in the United Kingdom: a core programme involving high profile national events focusing on the four themes, including cultural and sporting events, exhibitions and conferences; and a general programme, consisting of activities being organised by individual organisations, but not co-ordinated through the official structure.

  The Department is providing funds for the cost of a secretariat to co-ordinate the core programme and to disseminate news and information, and has already committed £81,000 in the current year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be launching the European Year in the United Kingdom at the age resource awards, which will be presented in

  505
  London on 17 December by HRH The Prince of Wales, one of a wide range of special events marking the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Council. This project highlights the creative potential and social participation of older people.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. HeppeII
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring the Government do of the voluntary agreements in tobacco advertising.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The voluntary agreement is monitored by the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship. The terms of reference of the committee are set out in appendix 7 of the voluntary agreement. This and its annual reports are in the Library.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the breaches of United Kingdom voluntary agreements on tobacco advertising reported in the fifth annual report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship were reported by Dr. Mindell, either personally or on behalf of organisations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ninety per cent. (28 out of 31 breaches), equally divided between breaches for which tobacco manufacturers were responsible and breaches by shopkeepers and other third parties ("inadvertent breaches").

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those health authorities in England that have requested water undertakers to increase the fluoride content of water supplies, indicating (i) those that have had their request met, (ii) those whose applications are pending and (iii) those that have been refused.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of the annual rates of cot deaths for 1990 and 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest annual figures published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the rate of sudden infant death (or cot death) in England and Wales fell from 1·93 per 1,000 live births in 1989 to 1·70 in 1990, and again to 1·44 in 1991.

  Towards the end of last year, the Government ran a successful media campaign to reduce the risk of cot death. Called the "Back to Sleep" campaign, it highlighted new evidence that the risk of cot death can be reduced if babies are laid to sleep on their back or sides, rather than on their stomachs.

  It is a measure of the success of the Government's campaign that the number of cot deaths which occurred in the month of December 1991 was about half the number which occurred in the previous December.

  A nationwide confidential enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy has been established. It will help us find out more about why some babies die and make us better able to prevent this happening in the future.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had from the disabilities study unit in regard to the report entitled "Relationships of Children with their Disabled Brothers and Sisters", a copy of which has been sent to her; what reply she is sending; what action she proposes to take; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received the report together with a request that the Department assists with the costs of its dissemination. We are considering this request.

  GPs (Job Evaluation)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of introducing job evaluation schemes for general practitioners in Birmingham and the west midlands.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are not aware of any plans to introduce such schemes.

  Ondine's Syndrome
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many research and specialist establishments exist within the United Kingdom for research and development into the treatment and cure of Ondine's syndrome;

  (2) how many persons presently suffering from Ondine's syndrome are presently living within the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available for England. Responsibility for Ondine's syndrome in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is respectively a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to health authorities in cases where a patient, requiring treatment for Ondine's syndrome, lives within their area.

  Mr. Sackville
  As with other disorders, provision of health care for those suffering from Ondine's syndrome, is made by district health authorities who are responsible for assessing the health needs of their resident populations and purchasing services to meet those needs.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of expenditure was devoted to research into Ondine's syndrome for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am not aware of any expenditure being devoted to research specifically into Ondine's syndrome. The main agency through which the Government support medical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Public Service and Science. The MRC is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals for research in competition with other applications.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Ondine's syndrome have been detected annually in the years 1982 to 1992 inclusive.
  507
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Bone Marrow Donors
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to identify and encourage bone marrow donors.

  Mr. Sackville
  Public awareness of bone marrow transplantation as a treatment for leukaemia has increased in recent years. This had led to an increase in the number of people volunteering to become donors, for those situations where a patient does not have a matched sibling donor.

  There are two bone marrow donor registers in the United Kingdom. The Anthony Nolan trust is a charity and relies on publicity for its success. The British Bone Marrow and Platelet Donor Panel (BBMPDP) recruits from blood donors directly through the blood transfusion service and does not advertise its work other than at regional transfusion centres. The two United Kingdom registers are working closely to ensure greater coordination of effort. This should be of benefit to patients. The Government contribute to the BBMPDP's running costs.

  Government support is not limited to the United Kingdom. One of the measures included in the 1990–94 action plan under the "Europe Against Cancer" initiative is a feasibility study on co-operation between European bone marrow donor banks.

  NHS Wages Bill
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the cost of increment drift for the NHS wages bill for 1990–91 and 1991–92; and the projected figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 850, if she will list (a) the terms of reference of the current review of her Department's requirements for information from the NHS, (b) the role of the management consultants used, (c) the timescale for completion of the review and (d) the date for reporting the results of the review to Parliament.

  Mr. Sackville
  The purpose of the review is to ensure that the burden on the national health service of completing central returns is fully justified by the uses to which the information is put centrally. Management consultants were employed to identify with the NHS those returns representing a significant burden beyond what is required for local operational purposes. The results of the review should be announced early next year.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce free prescriptions for the sufferers of Parkinson's disease.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Hospital Advertising
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that patients and relatives may be shielded from televisions and video advertising displays located in accident and emergency and out-patient departments if that is their wish; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Responsibility for managing advertis-ing in hospitals is for local managers who will have regard to the interests of patients and visitors when making arrangements.

  Royal College of Nursing Conference
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assurances she gave on the independence of pay review bodies at the Royal College of Nursing annual conference in 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I did not attend the Royal College of Nursing annual conference in 1991.

  Creuzfeldt Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of how Creuzfeldt Jakob disease may be acquired, other than through accidental injection; and what information she has on the nature of the disease-causing agent.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 29 June at column 441.

  Information on the incidence of Creuzfeldt Jakob disease in the United Kingdom is set out in annual Creuzfeldt Jakob disease surveillance unit report by Dr. Will, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Extensive epidemiological information on Creuzfeldt Jakob disease cases collected by the unit does not reveal an association between the disease and particular activities. Neither is there any indication that the pattern or incidence of Creuzfeldt Jakob disease has changed over the last two decades.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been produced to assist patients who may be contaminated with Creuzfeldt Jakob disease in the event that they(a) have children, (b) intend to donate blood or other organs and (c) wish to undertake tattoos.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Creuzfeldt Jakob disease surveillance unit has produced patient information on Creuzfeldt Jakob disease which is provided on a doctor-to-patient basis—a copy is in the Library. This makes no specific reference to the children of Creuzfeldt Jakob disease patients as there is no evidence to suggest Creuzfeldt Jakob disease can be passed between family members either through normal contact or in pregnancy. Neither does it refer to tattoos as there is no evidence of peripheral inoculation transmitting the infection.

  For guidance in respect of potential blood and organ donors I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave him on 29 June at column 443.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken to quantify the
  509
  proportion of persons, showing no symptoms of disease, who may be carrying the infectious agent causing Creuzfeldt Jakob disease.

  Mr. Yeo
  As yet there is no test to identify asymptomatic infection in humans. It is not therefore possible to identify those who may be carrying the Creuzfeldt Jakob disease agent.

  Hospices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on the development of hospices; and what is the level of financial support earmarked for this purpose for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government greatly appreciate the contribution of the voluntary hospice movement and of national health service units, to the provision of specialised care and support for terminally ill people and their families. Any individual or group considering developing a hospice or hospice-type services should discuss their ideas with the local health authority to ensure that services match local needs.

  Since 1990–91, the Government have allocated funds annually to regional health authorities in England specifically to enable them to increase the support they give to voluntary hospices. The sums allocated have been:

  £ million

  1990–91

  8

  1991–92

  17

  1992–93

  32

  Renal Patients
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce into the patients charter a specified time limit within which renal patients will be guaranteed the disconnect system.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the patients charter patients are guaranteed admission for treatment within a maximum of two years from the time they are placed on the waiting list. However, patients suffering from end-stage renal failure are not placed on waiting lists. As emergencies they are treated immediately by means of dialysis or kidney transplant.

  NHS Pay Policy
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the NHS executive statement and guidelines on the 1·5 per cent. pay policy in the NHS; and if she will list those who were sent this advice.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have written to the chairmen of all health service employing bodies setting out the arrangements for implementing the policy of restricting public sector pay settlements to a maximum of 1·5 per cent. in the coming year. The chief executive of the NHS Management Executive also wrote to general managers and chief executives setting out the key figures for public expenditure on health and priorities for use of those resources.

  Copies of both letters have been placed in the Library.

  Clinical Grading
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of clinical grading cases remaining to be heard under section 32 of the Whitley Council agreement at(a) regional health authority level and when they are expected to be concluded and (b) at national level and when they are expected to be concluded; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: At 30 September 1992 there were 19,908 appeals outstanding at regional health authority level and 2,138 at national level. Initiatives are being taken to bring the process to the earliest possible conclusion. Due to the introduction of new appeals procedures the number of national appeals heard in the six months up to 31 October 1992 was almost twice the number heard in the 18 months prior to that date.

  Disease Statistics
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current incidence of(a) Lyme's disease, (b) leptospirosis, (c) trichanella spiralis, (d) Q fever and (e) toxoplasmosis.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Laboratory reports to the Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre for England and Wales for these infections are as follows. It should be noted that the data are provisional and do not differentiate between indigenous and imported cases.

  Disease

  Laboratory reports 1991

  (a) lyme disease

  39

  (b) leptospirosis

  30

  (c) trichinosis

  0

  (d) Q fever

  74

  (e) toxoplasmosis1

  635

  1 A British Paediatric Surveillance Unit survey on congenital toxoplasmosis—the serious form of this condition—showed 14 symptomatic babies (0·1 year) in England and Wales for a 12 month period in 1989–90.

  NHS Capital Schemes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital projects costing £1 million or more are currently scheduled by each regional health authority; what is the anticipated date of completion for each project; what was the original projected completion date for each project; and how many projects and at what total value, have been removed from the 1992–93 capital programme in each regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: The latest information available on capital schemes costing over £ 1 million under construction in each regional health authority area is shown in the table. Management of the capital programme is a matter for individual regional health authorities, and information on schemes in planning or removed from the programme is not held centrally. In total, some 400 schemes each costing more than £1 million are at various stages of planning, design and construction throughout the NHS in England.
  511

  Schemes £1 million and over which are under construction

  Authority and Scheme

  Contract target completion date

  Latest estimated completion date

  Northern RHA

  Furness General Scheme 3 Phase 1 (Mental Illness)

  16 January 1993

  3 February 1993

  Royal Victoria Infirmary Ante-Natal Clinic

  25 September 1993

  25 September 1993

  RVI-Unification of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  31 March 1993

  31 March 1993

  Sunderland General Scheme 2 Phase 2 (ward block)

  28 July 1993

  4 August 1993

  W. Cumberland GH rationalisation maternity/geriatric

  15 May 1994

  15 May 1994

  Wansbeck General Hospital Scheme 1 Phase 1 (Nucleus)

  29 May 1992

  11 December 1992

  Yorkshire RHA

  Chapel Allerton (Newton Green Wing additions)

  24 December 1993

  24 December 1993

  Harrogate DGH Acute Geriatric Improvements Scunthorpe DGH Phase 4A(3) Path. 2 and Hydro

  16 January 1995 13 February 1994

  16 January 1995 13 February 1994

  St. James Redevelopment Phase 4 (Nucleus)

  9 May 1994

  9 May 1994

  St. Lukes Development Phase 1A (Nucleus)

  25 February 1993

  25 February 1993

  Trent RHA

  Bassetlaw DGH Phase 2A

  12 March 1993

  12 March 1993

  Clay Cross Community Hospital

  28 February 1994

  28 February 1994

  Derby City Hospital Mental Illness Unit

  16 January 1994

  28 June 1993

  Glenfield DGH Phase 3 Cardiothoric Dept.

  27 August 1993

  27 August 1993

  Kings Mill DGH OPD & GU Clinic

  4 October 1992

  30 October 1992

  Leicester Health Authority Cook/Chill

  0 May 1992

  30 October 1992

  Lincoln County Phase 2

  2 October 1992

  30 November 1992

  Mansfield Community 2 new wards

  26 March 1993

  26 March 1993

  Notts City Renal/ Radiotherapy

  30 November 1992

  8 May 1993

  Rotherham DGH Phase 3B Geriatric Unit

  24 June 1994

  24 June 1994

  East Anglia RHA

  Ipswich HRW—pathology extension PHI

  30 November 1992

  1 December 1992

  Risbridge facilities for mentally handicapped

  4 March 1993

  4 March 1993

  UEA School of Physio+ O/T

  6 November 1993

  6 November 1993

  Waveney Hospital—ESMI Unit

  18 December 1992

  18 December 1992

  North West Thames RHA

  Central Middlesex Acute

  Secure Unit/Mother and Baby Unit

  28 May 1993

  28 May 1993

  Charing Cross Hospital

  Linear Accident and new building

  26 October 1992

  26 October 1992

  Vincent Square Health Care Centre (W and C)

  17 February 1993

  17 February 1993

  Westminster and Chelsea Hospital

  9 June 1992

  30 November 1992

  North East Thames RHA

  Chase Farm Regional Secure Unit

  12 October 1992

  2 November 1992

  512

  Authority and Scheme

  Contract target completion date

  Latest estimated completion date

  Daleham Gardens

  Intensive Rehabilitation Unit/Health Clinic

  7 February 1993

  7 February 1993

  Goodmayes DGH

  10 November 1992

  10 November 1992

  South East Thames RHA

  Guys Phase 3 Stage Superstructure

  16 May 1993

  19 December 1993

  Kings College Hospital— Theatres

  27 August 1993

  17 September 1993

  Knights Hill—ESMI Unit

  2 November 1992

  9 November 1992

  Mid Kent Radiotherapy

  3 October 1992

  21 December 1992

  RSCH Tower Block Internal/External Refurbishment

  18 March 1993

  18 March 1993

  St. Martin's Hospital Phase 1—MH1

  21 May 1993

  21 May 1993

  St. Martin's Hospital Phase 2

  Office Kitchen Block

  22 January 1993

  22 January 1993

  St. Thomas' Hospital—A and E Upgrade/ Extension

  24 January 1994

  24 January 1994

  Thanet Mental Health Development

  7 May 1993

  7 May 1993

  Uckfield Community Hospital

  29 October 1993

  29 October 1993

  William Harvey Hospital

  1A Rehabilitation and NI Unit

  20 January 1993

  6 September 1993

  South West Thames RHA

  Barnes ESMI Phase 2 (Nucleus)

  5 January 1993

  5 January 1993

  Frimley Park Hospital Phases 1 and 2

  12 February 1993

  12 February 1993

  St. John's Twickenham Redevelopment Phase 1

  7 February 1993

  7 February 1993

  Tolworth Hospital—New Ward Unit

  6 June 1993

  6 June 1993

  Woking Hospital Development—Phase 1

  Rehab Centre

  11 December 1993

  11 December 1993

  Wessex RHA

  Alton Community Hospital/LMT

  Redevelopment Phase 1

  4 January 1991

  30 November 1992

  Gosport Community Hospital Phase 1A

  30 April 1993

  30 November 1992

  Queen Alexandra Ophthalmology Department

  16 July 1993

  16 July 1993

  Royal United Hospital— Bath and Wessex Replacement

  23 June 1993

  23 June 1993

  Southampton General East Wing Window Replacement

  18 February 1993

  18 February 1993

  St. Andrew's Hospital— Chippenham Catering

  00 August 1993

  00 August 1993

  St. Mary's Portsmouth Phase 2A and 2B

  26 June 1994

  26 June 1994

  Oxford RHA

  Amersham—Dermatology Unit

  8 November 1993

  8 November 1993

  Ashurst—Phase 1

  10 August 1993

  10 August 1993

  Central Area—CPU

  13 October 1992

  13 November 1992

  Southern Area—CPU

  1 March 1993

  1 March 1993

  Wexham Park—Post Graduate Medical Centre

  2 August 1993

  2 August 1993

  South Western RHA

  Bridgewater EPD 18 beds

  18 day places

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1993

  513

  Authority and Scheme

  Contract target completion date 27 April 1994

  Latest estimated completion date

  Cheltenham Acute Mental Illness

  27 April 1994

  Derriford DGH Phase 2

  14 December 1992

  3 February 1993

  Derriford DGH Phase 3A Maternity Unit

  29 October 1993

  29 October 1993

  Derriford Fire Precautions Work

  00 December 1992

  00 December 1992

  Frenchay DGH Phase 1A

  4 December 1992

  4 December 1992

  Gloucester Royal Pathology

  23 October 1992

  14 December 1992

  Gloucester Royal Waste Disposal Complex

  00 May 1992

  00 August 1992

  Lyngford House Taunton Phase 11

  21 January 1993

  21 January 1993

  Manor Park Hospital New Mental Illness Unit

  19 September 1992

  19 September 1992

  Watford Gardens Newcourt Hospital Replacement

  11 December 1992

  11 December 1992

  Royal Devon and Exeter (Wonford) Priority 2 (Nucleus)

  21 July 1995

  21 July 1995

  Royal Devon and Exeter (Wonford) Support Services

  11 March 1994

  11 March 1994

  Southmead Hospital— Orthopaedic Unit (Nucleus)

  29 November 1992

  29 November 1992

  Southmead Hospital Mental Illness Unit

  4 October 1992

  16 November 1992

  Taunton and Somerset Hospital Phase 2

  26 March 1995

  31 August 1994

  Torbay DGH Surgical Services (Part only)

  31 May 1993

  31 May 1993

  Totnes Community Hospital

  20 June 1993

  20 June 1993

  West Cornwall Penzance New Ward Block

  9 September 1993

  9 September 1993

  West Midlands RHA

  Burton DGH Phase 2.4 main hospital

  15 February 1993

  15 February 1993

  Conversion of surgical square to medical beds

  18 December 1992

  18 December 1992

  Dudley DGH Mental Health Development

  31 July 1993

  31 July 1993

  East Birmingham— Maternity/ENT Theatres/Pathology

  4 September 1992

  1 October 1992

  George Eliot Nuneaton Phase 3 (Nucleus)

  9 July 1993

  18 July 1993

  Hollymoor Hospital Community Unit

  28 September 1992

  11 January 1993

  Kidderminster DGH Phase 6 (Nucleus)

  24 July 1995

  24 July 1995

  Rowley Regis Community Hospital Sandwell

  10 December 1993

  27 January 1994

  Solihull DGH Phase 2 Contract 1 (Nucleus)

  10 April 1994

  10 April 1994

  514

  Authority and Scheme

  Contract target completion date

  Latest estimated completion date

  St. Cross Rugby Phase 3

  (Nucleus)

  14 September 1992

  3 November 1992

  Warwick DGH Phase 2

  3 October 1993

  3 October 1993

  Mersey RHA

  Clatterbridge Hospital Redevelopment Phase 2

  6 December 1993

  6 December 1993

  Fazakerley Hospital A&E Department

  16 April 1993

  16 May 1993

  Hospital for Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  20 Janaury 1995

  20 January 1995

  Warrington DGH Phase C Whiston Phase I Regional Burns and Plastic Unit

  30 September 1993 8 October 1993

  13 September 1993 8 October 1993

  North Western RHA

  Birch Hill Hospital-

  Mental Illness Unit

  24 January 1993

  24 January 1993

  Calderstones Hospital— Replacement Kitchen

  5 February 1993

  5 February 1993

  Chorley DGH Phase 3A

  12 March 1995

  12 March 1995

  Manchester Royal Infirmary—Mental Illness Unit

  22 June 1993

  22 June 1993

  Manchester Royal Infirmary—Pathology

  and Mortuary

  1 January 1995

  1 January 1995

  Manchester Royal Infirmary— Phase 2 Ass. Works

  PHB

  28 September 1993

  29 September 1993

  Manchester Royal

  Infirmary—School of Physiotherapy

  12 January 1993

  12 January 1993

  North Manchester General—Cook Chill

  Catering Development North Manchester General—

  7 September 1992

  23 October 1992

  F and G Block (Main Phase)

  March 1994

  March 1994

  North Manchester General—Phase 1

  23 May 1993

  23 May 1993

  Ormskirk District General Hospital Phase 1

  9 March 1993

  9 March 1993

  Post Graduate Medical Centre

  2 July 1993

  2 July 1993

  Prestwich Mental Health Centre for Deaf People

  1 February 1993

  30 January 1993

  Queens Park—PH3 Maternity and Gynaecology

  25 July 1994

  25 July 1994

  Royal Lancaster Infirmary —Phase 3

  18 August 1995

  18 August 1995

  Wythenshawe Integrated Thoracic Medicine

  9 November 1992

  23 November 1992

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he will arrange for officials from his Department to meet representatives of the Graphics Company, Ivybridge, Devon, to discuss the application for regional selective assistance made by the company last August;

  (2) what plans he has to make a decision on the application for regional selective assistance submitted in August by the Graphics Company, Ivybridge, South Devon.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Officials of my Department met the Graphics Company on 18 November. A decision on the company's application for regional selective assistance is expected by the end of November.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to provide to Parliament such information on export licences as is provided to the inquiry conducted by Lord Justice Scott.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of all applications for export licences to Iraq in respect of machine tools, equipment and arms that were either approved or rejeted under the rules laid down by his predecessor in 1985 that were submitted by Marconi, GEC, BAC, Colchester Lathes or any subsidiary companies; and if he will make a statement about the extent of those applications from subsidiary companies over the same period.

  Mr. Needham
  No. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose such information. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Minutes of Evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, 26 November 1991, pp 37–106.

  Policy Initiatives
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the initiatives taken on industrial policy by him during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Since the beginning of the United Kingdom presidency, we have made further significant progress towards completion of the single market programme—the free trade principles of which will assist the development of business within the Community. The United Kingdom presidency has also achieved a key objective with the adoption by the Internal Market Council on 10 November of a resolution on "Making the Single Market Work". This resolution should help to ensure that single market legislation is implemented effectively and enforced evenly throughout the Community.

  As well as taking forward work in hand in the Council of Ministers, the United Kingdom presidency has promoted two initiatives: on industrial competitiveness and evironmental protection and on administrative simplification. The former should ensure the proper integration of environmental and industrial policies at
  516
  Community level and the close involvement of industy in the development of policies designed to achieve the Community's environmental objectives. The latter should ensure that new legislation at Community level does not add unnecessary burdens to business.

  The Industry Council which I shall be chairing on 24 November will have a substantial agenda covering many aspects of EC industrial policy, including draft resolutions on the initiatives referred to above.

  Betws Mine, Ammanford
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will direct the British Coal Corporation immediately to desist from blocking access to coal reserves at the Betws mine, Ammanford; and forthwith to seek bids by public tender from potential operators with a view to continuing mining operations as from 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Ministers have no powers to give specific directions about the conduct of its business to British Coal.

  The corporation has assured me that it will continue to discharge responsibly its duty to consider applications from responsible organisations seeking licences to mine coal. British Coal has also given me an assurance that when coaling ceases at Betws it will ensure that the fabric of the pit is preserved so that, if at the end of the statutory consultation period it is decided to keep it open, that will be possible.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many British Coal staff have been disciplined or dismissed for releasing to commercial organisations lists of names of British Coal employees likely to be in receipt of lump sum redundancy payments during the present round of pit closures.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 November 19921]: This is a matter for British Coal.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will update his answer of 17 January 1992,Official Report, column 716, with respect to the trading operations of the Technology and Development Group based in London, in connection with the procurement of military usable technology for Iraq.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: I have nothing to add to the earlier answer given by my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much cover was provided by the Export Credit Guarantee Department for exports to Iraq in the period from 1985 to the outbreak of hostilities; and how much of it is outstanding.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 20 November 19921]: A total of £615 million medium-term credit was made available to Iraq in the form of a series of financial protocols between 1985 and the outbreak of hostilities. In addition ECGD also insured cash and short-term credit transactions of £725 million over the same period. At present £830 million remains outstanding for payment, of which, as at 31 October 1992, £463 million represented unrecovered claims paid by ECGD.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current amount of coal produced from opencast mining in tonnes and as a percentage of current coal production.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: Total production of opencast coal in 1991–92 from British Coal Opencast and licensed private sector producers was 19 million tonnes, 21 per cent. of the total United Kingdom coal production.

  Energy Enterprises
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the application of the 1·5 per cent. pay rise ceiling to each of(a) those energy enterprises which are still nationalised and (b) those energy enterprises now privatised in which the Government maintain a substantial minority shareholding.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: In the autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that pay settlements in the public sector and related bodies will be restricted to the range 0–1·5 per cent. in the coming year. This policy applies to energy enterprises which are publicly owned, namely: British Coal Corporation, Nuclear Electric plc. British Nuclear Fuels plc, the UK Atomic Energy Authority and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. The policy does not apply to energy enterprises in which the Government have a minority shareholding.

  Second-hand Gas Appliances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps will he take to extend safety standards to second-hand gas appliances, beyond 1 January 1996.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: A high standard of safety is already required for second hand gas cookers under the Gas Cooking Appliances (Safety) Regulations 1989. The regulation of these products after 1 January 1996 will be maintained and I am also considering the possibility of extending the same level of consumer protection to a wider range of second hand gas appliances.

  Office of Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts have been put out to consultancies by the Office of Electricity Regulation; what are their subjects, cost and completion dates; and which ones have been or will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: This is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply. I have passed the question to the director general and he will write to give the information and place it in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many whole-time equivalent staff work for the Office of Electricity Regulation; and what are their grades, functions and location.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: This is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply. I
  518
  have passed the question to the director general and he will write to give the information and place it in the House of Commons Library.

  Assisted Area Status
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the areas eligible for assisted area status to north Staffordshire as part of his review of assisted area status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: The needs and circumstances of all areas including north Staffordshire will be carefully considered in the review.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the submission of intent for assisted area status presented by the city of Stoke on Trent on 13 November.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: My Department has received a submission which the city of Stoke on Trent made jointly with other Staffordshire organisations in September. To date, the further submission dated 13 November referred to has not been received. I shall be considering the needs and circumstances of all areas and all the representations received as part of the present assisted areas map review.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charters
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new charters are scheduled for publication in the next six months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Twenty-seven charters have been published to date. Six more charters will be published over the next six months.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on private sector funding of scientific research.

  Mr. Jackson
  Private sector funding for scientific research is buoyant. Such funding almost doubled in real terms over the 1985–1990 period.

  Justices of the Peace (Stockport)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to appoint new Stockport JPs who live in north Reddish and south Reddish or Brinnington wards; and when he expects to appoint new Tameside JPs who live in the Denton, North-East ward.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My advisory committee in Stockport is currently processing 51 applications, two of which are from the wards concerned. In Tameside my advisory committee has recently recommended the names of 10 prospective justices of which four are from Denton, one of them from Denton, North-East ward.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received since 9 April from members of the public about the citizens charter programme; and if he will make a statement.
  519
  Mr. Jackson
  We have since 9 April received nearly 1,500 letters from members of the public referring to the citizens charter. This is a clear indication of the charter's success in encouraging people to demand better, more responsive services.

  Candidate Name

  Parent Department

  Staff1

  Army Logistics (Including Army Base Repair Organisation)2 3

  Defence

  12,000

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Cabinet Office

  440

  Child Support Agency4

  Northern Ireland

  —4

  Defence Central Services2

  Defence

  1,400

  Defence Animal Centre2

  Defence

  220

  Directorate Information Technology Bureau Services2

  Defence

  120

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Northern Ireland

  250

  Equipment Test and Evaluation2

  Defence

  2,220

  Fuel Suppliers Branch

  Environment

  20

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  Home Office

  37,900

  Human Factors Research2

  Defence

  390

  Meat Hygiene Service5

  Agriculture

  —5

  Ministry of Defence Police2

  Defence

  5,100

  Naval Training2

  Defence

  5,200

  National Health Service Superannuation Branch

  Health

  630

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys6

  Health

  2,100

  Paymaster General's Office

  Treasury

  850

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  Agriculture

  150

  Property Division

  Treasury Solicitor

  120

  Property Holdings Portfolio Management

  Environment

  460

  Royal Air Force Training2

  Defence

  9,200

  Royal Parks

  National Heritage

  270

  Scottish Office Superannuation

  Scottish Office

  160

  Scottish Prison Service

  Scottish Office

  4,230

  Social Security Child Support Agency7

  Social Security

  —7

  Transport and Security Services Division

  Environment

  1,235

  Valuation and Lands Office

  Northern Ireland

  350

  Youth Treatment Service

  Health

  220

  28 in number

  1 April 1992 figures for Civil Servants and Armed Forces Personnel. Casuals are excluded. Part time staff are counted as half units.

  2 May be launched as a Defence Support Agency. All figures subject to revision due to major reorganisation. Figures include 7,300 Armed Forces personnel.

  3 Excludes 500 staff in Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency launched 1 July 1992.

  4 Estimated to require 550 staff by April 1993. Of these 120 will come from the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency.

  5 Estimated to require 1,800 staff, drawn from a variety of sources.

  6 Independent Government Department. Responsible Minister: Secretary of State for Health.

  7 DSS estimate the Agency at launch will comprise 4,500 staff, 1,500 of which will come from the Social Security Benefits Agency.

  Many other areas are under internal consideration for executive agency status.

  Health and Safety Policies (Agencies)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place a copy in the Library of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within his Department.

  Mr. Jackson
  The chief executives of the Central Office of Information, the Civil Service college, her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Occupational Health Service and the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency are responsible for health and safety policy within their agencies.

  I am placing in the Library copies of the health and safety policies applying in the Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I am also placing in the Library a copy of volume IV of the

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all units of central Government currently under consideration for executive agency status, their parent Department and the number of staff employed in each case in full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The current list of activities announced by Departments as under consideration for executive agency status, together with their parent department and staff employed is as follows:

  Cabinet Office staff handbook, which contains the Cabinet Office's health and safety policy. This will continue to apply in the Civil Service college, the Occupational Health Service and the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency until separate health and safety policies have been developed and put in place.

SCOTLAND

  National Monuments
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many ancient and historic monuments in Scotland were added to the national monuments record in each year since 1989;

  (2) if he will list the reported instances of damage to scheduled ancient and historical monuments in Scotland from 1989 to 1992; and what action was taken on the discovery of the damage;
  521
  (3) how many ancient and historical monuments in Historic Scotland aims to schedule from 1992 to 1995;

  (4) how many management agreements for national monuments were made in 1991.

  Mr. Lang
  I have passed the hon. Member's questions to the chief executive of Historic Scotland and asked him to reply direct.

  Letter from G. Munro to Mr. Nigel Griffiths, dated 22 November 1992:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about ancient and historical monuments in Scotland.
  Firstly, you asked how many ancient and historical monuments were added to the National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS) in each of the years from 1989 to 1992. The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) is responsible for maintaining a comprehensive archive and database in the form of the NMRS. I have therefore contacted the RCAHMS who informed me that they added the following number of monuments to the NMRS:—

  Number

  1989–90

  2,430

  1990–91

  2,586

  1991–92

  2,050

  The Commission inform me that the figure for 1991–92 will be increased by air photographs of sites discovered in that period which have yet to be fully incorporated into the NMRS. In addition 1991–92 was the year in which the whole national archive was moved to new premises.
  Secondly, you asked the Secretary of State if he would list the reported instances of damage to scheduled ancient and historical monuments in Scotland from 1989 to 1992; and what action was taken on the discovery of the damage. No central record of such cases is maintained but we are aware of 35 cases during the period. In such cases we would normally write to the owner of the monument, or the person who had carried out the work which had damaged the monument, seeking an explanation for the unauthorised works. This could result in remedial action being taken or in extreme cases the matter being referred to the Procurator Fiscal for possible prosecution.
  Thirdly, you asked how many ancient and historical monuments in Scotland Historic Scotland aim to schedule from 1992 to 1995. As shown in Annex A to our Corporate Plan for 1992–95, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library, we aim to schedule 900 monuments in this period—300 per year.
  Finally, you asked how many management agreements for national monuments were made in 1991. The answer to that question is eight.

  Green Policies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the Departmental Green Minister has promoted protection of the ozone layer with specific policy measures and which possible measures have been considered and rejected and on what grounds.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: The Government's policy on the protection of the ozone layer is set out in the 1990 White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and the subsequent yearly reports. It is to control and eliminate as quickly as possible the production and supply of ozone-depleting substances. This will be reflected in the Scottish Office's green housekeeping strategy, currently in the course of preparation, which will include a presumption against the purchase of any
  522
  products which cause significant damage to the environment during manufacture, use or disposal, if a suitable alternative is available.

  Domiciliary Family Planning
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those health authorities which provided domiciliary family planning services in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: Since 1985, five health boards—Forth Valley. Grampian, Greater Glasgow, Lothian and Tayside—have provided continuous domiciliary family planning services.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the funds available to local authorities for the maintenance of listed buildings owned by themselves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: Local authority current expenditure is supported by aggregate external finance which, with the exception of specific grants, is not hypothecated to particular services. So far as capital expenditure is concerned, each authority receives annually a block capital consent allocation which it is free to augment by revenue contributions and capital receipts. Within the total levels of support available to them, authorities are free to set their own current and capital expenditure priorities.

  University Research
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the amount of research funding to universities in Scotland from agencies funded by his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Financial allocations for programmes, including higher education, within the Scottish block will be announced in the near future.

  Single-tier Councils
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the costs of the consultation exercise in relation to the proposals for single-tier councils in Scotland, indicating how many consultation documents, videos and leaflets have been distributed and at what cost.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  Number produced to date

  Cost1 (£)

  Number distributed to date

  Consultation paper

  22,500

  72,000

  17,000

  Video

  900

  27,500

  785

  Leaflets

  110,000

  31,000

  75,000

  1 Costs shown are production costs and do not include postage.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial contribution will be made to local authorities for supplementation to private nursing homes for the year beginning 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend announced on 2 October that he was making available £40·6 million to local authorities in 1993–94, being the transfer of resources from the Department of Social Security and a further £20 million for other costs associated with implementation of our community care reforms. These sums are not hypothecated to expenditure on particular types of services but we expect authorities to devote a significant part of these resources to supporting new residents of nursing homes in the private sector.

  Police (Court Appearances)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many citations to appear in court were issued to police officers in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available; and how many were withdrawn prior to the date of the trial in each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: This information is not recorded.

  Sheep Annual Premiums
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of sheep annual premium application forms for the current year received so far from sheep producers in the Western Isles have been wrongly completed; what the percentages of false completion were in the previous three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 November 1992]: A total of 0·74 per cent. of applications for the 1992 sheep annual premium from sheep producers in the Western Isles have been wrongly completed and rejected for payment. The information for earlier years is not readily available.

TRANSPORT

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards road pricing.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We are undertaking a major three year study of congestion in London. This is to inform debate on road pricing in towns and cities. No decisions have been taken. As the Chancellor indicated in his autumn statement, I will publish a Green Paper early next year on the scope for motorway charging.

  Networker Trains (Kent)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the prospects for the introduction of the proposed Networker express trains for east Kent and the Kent coastal service.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the autumn statement the Government announced an increase in BR's external 524
  finance. British Rail will be allowed to order up to £150 million of rolling stock on leases over the next three years. BR has not yet decided which rolling stock orders would be suitable for leases but is considering this matter at present.

  Rail Access (Disabled People)
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he gives British Rail about making provision for access by the disabled.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail takes account of the needs of people with disabilities in the provision of its services and facilities.

  The Department is represented on BR's advisory group on disability, which includes people with a wide range of disabilities. The Department's disability unit also works closely with BR on these issues.

  Cones
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he will take to reduce the number of cones on roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We are actively pursuing measures to reduce the number of cones on the national road network to the minimum consistent with safety, and with the smooth flow of traffic through roadworks. These include: the development of improved road materials which require less maintenance, increased use of incentive contracts to reduce contract periods, and use of moving vehicles instead of cones to close lanes for routine maintenance.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail links to the channel tunnel.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I meet regularly with the chairman of British Rail and channel tunnel issues are often discussed.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive from British Rail its proposals for a specific route for a new rail link between King's Cross and Folkestone.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect a report by the end of December containing a reference case route and associated options.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his best estimate of the difference in cost between building the proposed channel tunnel rail link to the largest European gauge and the gauge measurements favoured by Union Railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways' costed proposals and options will be submitted to Government by the end of the year. Its report will include proposals for the gauge of the link.

  Road Crashes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the reduction of deaths and serious injuries from road crashes.
  525
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The provisional figures for the 12 months ending in June 1992 are: 4,585 deaths, 50,695 serious injuries and 312,278 slight injuries. These figures show that, for deaths and serious injuries, the Government have already almost achieved their target of reducing road casualties by one-third by the year 2000.

  Coal Mining Areas
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to draw up a transport policy to create a more appropriate infrastructure for traditional coal mining areas.

  Mr. Macgregor
  The Government fully recognise the importance of good transport infrastructure in promoting economic regeneration. The Government will continue their policy of promoting a high level of investment in transport infrastructure in all modes, both in traditional mining areas and elsewhere. Major transport policies in south Yorkshire which will assist coal mining areas include the £29 million Dearne towns link road—supported by transport supplementary grant—and the channel tunnel rail freight terminal at Wakefield.

  Ports (Trade)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the proportion of trade coming to British ports at weekends as opposed to weekdays.

  Mr. Norris
  Although no overall assessment can he made of the proportion of trade coming to British ports at weekends from the available information, most British major ports are open at weekends and there are indications of significant weekend demand at some ports.

  London-Leicester Line
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what future plans he has for the electrification of the London-Leicester line.

  Mr. Freeman
  At present, it is for British Rail to come forward with investment proposals it considers worthwhile and in the light of available resources. I understand that electrification will be one of the options considered when the existing rolling stock reaches the end of its economic life.

  Railways (Leaf Fall)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what success British Rail has had in dealing with the autumn leaf fall on to rail lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has implemented a range of measures to deal with the perennial leaf problem. These have included the spreading of sandite paste on the track at noted trouble spots, special driver training, and the management of lineside vegetation. I believe that these measures have helped to minimise delays.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work will start on the east London river crossing.
  526
  Mr. Norris
  We hope to be able to start work soon on this important scheme. However, construction cannot begin until the current High Court challenges and the question of the EC infraction proceedings have been resolved. In the meantime, we are pressing on with detailed design and other advance work.

  Environmental Impact
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to introduce to reduce the environmental impact of transport.

  Mr. MacGregor
  From the end of this year most new cars will require catalytic converters to meet tighter EC emissions standards. The United Kingdom Government continue to press for even tighter emissions and noise standards for vehicles and to discuss with other member states and the Commission measures to improve the fuel efficiency of new cars.

  From 1 August 1993, certain existing vehicles over 16 tonnes will be required to have speed limiters. This measure complements the introduction of speed limiters for new heavy goods vehicles on 1 August 1992 and will improve fuel consumption and reduce emissions.

  The MOT emissions check introduced for cars in November 1991 is helping to reduce exhaust emissions. Since 1 September there has been a metered smoke test in the annual test for heavy diesels. A similar test for light vans and diesel cars shortly will be included for the first time in the MOT test from 1 January 1993.

  We are working on a number of other initiatives for 1992–93, including the publication of an updated manual of environmental appraisal. The White Paper "This Common Inheritance—The Second Year Report" gives further information about our work to reduce the impact of transport on the environment.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his plans for the privatisation of British Rail's island assets.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is now analysing the responses to the consultation document on franchising issued on 12 October. We hope to be able to announce early next year the first services or groups of services that will be prepared for franchising. We are considering whether the Isle of Wight services will be included in that announcement.

  Red Routes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to instigate an independent review to determine how the pilot red routes have been operating.

  Mr. Norris
  Independent monitoring of the pilot red route scheme by the transport research laboratory has already shown how well it has been operating.

  River Travel (London)
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to improve travel in London by river.
  527
  Mr. Norris
  Since the Marchioness Disaster in 1989, my Department immediately accepted all the recommendations in the Marine Accident Investigation Branch's report into the loss of the Marchioness and took immediate action to implement them as quickly as possible. All but five of the 27 recommendations have been fully implemented and action on the outstanding recommendations should be completed by the end of the year. Action is now in hand on all 22 recommendations in the Hayes report of the inquiry into river safety.

  For the future, I wish to explore further the potential for both passenger and freight traffic on the River Thames and I hope to make an announcement about this shortly.

  Third Aviation Package
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards the implementation of the third aviation package; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Good progress has been made in preparations to make the appropriate changes to existing United Kingdom legislation. The necessary statutory instruments will be laid before the House shortly so that these changes can be in place by the end of the year.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about traffic flows on the Severn bridge since the last change in tolls.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  About 4¼ million vehicles have travelled westbound over the Severn bridge since 26 April when the concessionaires, Severn River Crossing plc, introduced a new one-way toll. This is about 6 per cent. less than the figure for the same period in 1991. No figures are available for eastbound, non-tolled, traffic.

  Penzance-Exeter Line
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will come to a decision on the proposal for electrification of the British Rail South West main line from Penzance to Exeter.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has not put forward any proposals for electrification of the Great Western main line. Electrification will be one of the options considered by British Rail to replace infrastructure and rolling stock when they reach the end of their economic lives.

  Bus Users
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to expand regional transport users' consultative committees to cover bus users.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. It would be inappropriate to expand the role of the transport users consultative committees to cover buses which operate in a competitive environment.

  Hayes Bypass
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he is undertaking into the effects upon pedestrians and vehicular traffic in Northolt following the opening of the Hayes bypass; and if he will make a statement.
  528
  Mr. Norris
  None. The roads in question are the responsibility of the London borough of Ealing.

  Duty-free Goods
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that aircraft and ships are not overloaded as a result of the changes in duty-free and duty-paid concessions from 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  The proposed changes in duty-free and duty-paid concessions from 1 January 1993 will not have any effect on the loading of goods on aircraft and ships.

  It is, and will remain, the duty of the commander of the ship and aircraft to ensure he is satisfied that all goods loaded onto the vessel or aircraft are stowed, distributed, secured and segregated so as to ensure that the load may be carried safely on the voyage or flight. Such loading would be in accordance with the design and performance characteristics of the vessel or aircraft. Monitoring, by a process of ongoing inspections by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for aircraft and the Surveyor General's Organisation (SGO) for marine vessels, ensure that safety standards are not compromised.

  London Underground
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the Jubilee line extension to come into operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I cannot offer a precise date. There is planned to be a 53-months' construction period, which would start after the conclusion of a formal agreement with the administrators of Olympia and York Canary Wharf on the terms of its contribution to the cost of the extension.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions in November on which he held discussions with London Underground; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I discuss matters affecting the underground regularly with the chairman of London Transport and I have done so on a number of occasions during November; the topics covered include the public expenditure settlement, the Jubilee line and industrial relations.

  Rail Services (Disabled People)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the importance of(a) local rail services and (b) the national rail network to disabled people.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State and I are well aware of the importance of rail services to disabled passengers as is British Rail. That is why the Department of Transport is represented on BR's advisory group on disability, which includes people with a wide range of disabilities. The Department's disability unit also works closely with BR on these issues and I know that British Rail does take account of the needs of people with disabilities in the provision of services and facilities.

  Bus Companies
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of local authority-owned bus companies.

  Mr. Macgregor
  Following the autumn statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would like to remind local authorities that if they sell their public transport companies (PTCs) by 31 December 1993, they will be able to devote the proceeds to projects such as the improvement of public transport. After that date 50 per cent. of the proceeds will have to be used for the reduction of their debt. I trust this will encourage the sale of the remaining PTCs before we fulfil our manifesto commitment to make their sale compulsory.

  Although I expect that future sales of PTCs will be by competitive tender, I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has agreed that the time limit previously announced in relation to pension arrangements for those PTCs where sales to buy-out teams have already been agreed in principle, will be extended to 30 June 1993. The staff concerned will be able to remain within the local government superannuation scheme if the sales are completed by that date, and I would urge all concerned to meet this deadline.

  I have today issued a direction to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, the sole shareholder of Greater Manchester Buses Ltd., to produce a plan to divide the company into separate smaller companies. The direction is issued in accordance with section 61 of the Transport Act 1985 and the plan must be submitted to me by 30 March 1993.

  I have taken this step to bring the full benefits of bus deregulation to bus passengers in Greater Manchester. The very size of Greater Manchester Buses has tended to inhibit competition between operators and I am convinced that dividing the company into smaller units will bring better services to passengers. I look to the PTA, using its expertise on public transport matters and local knowledge, to produce a workable plan to achieve the division of Greater Manchester Buses.

  Shipping Records
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have been made(a) in each of the past three years an (b) so far this year (i) by his Department and (ii) by the contractor at the relevant time in respect of the operation of the Small Ships Register.

  Mr. Norris
  I am not aware of any complaint about the day-to-day running of the register.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the importance of the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen to modern historians of British and Commonwealth merchant shipping and seamen.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is aware that the services of the registry are valued by modern historians undertaking research, some of whom have written letters of support for the registry. We will want to ensure that the registry continues to provide this service following the market testing.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those agencies in his Department which are being considered for privatisation or contractorisation.

  Mr. Gummer
  Before an agency is created, there is a thorough assessment of alternative options, including privatisation and contractorisation. Each agency is reviewed after three years in operation and privatisation and contractorisation are again considered.

  When I announced on 25 July 1990 that ADAS was to become an agency I said that privatisation could, in the longer run, be the logical development. Any change of status for a MAFF agency would be announced at the appropriate time.

  Foreign Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to amend regulations currently allowing foreign-owned super-trawlers to register under British registration and prevent them from fishing British waters.

  Mr. Curry
  As a result of the European Court ruling given in the Factortame case last year, non-British EC nationals may register fishing vessels in the United Kingdom provided those vessels are to be operated, managed and controlled from here. Beam trawlers like other fishing vessels are subject to United Kingdom licensing and quota management rules, but any restriction on grounds of nationality would be discriminatory and contrary to Community law. Fisheries Departments operate a restrictive licensing policy so that any newly registered beam trawler will need to have transferred onto it a licence which has been issued to an existing vessel. This arrangement restricts access of beam trawlers in order to protect stocks. It has applied in the North sea since August this year and was an extension of the arrangements which existed in area VII since 1985.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to offer full compensation to shellfish producers who operate within shellfish fisheries where they are adversely affected by the pumping of sewage into the sea.

  Mr. Curry
  As part of the discussions now underway we are helping shellfishermen to overcome problems arising from the microbiological status of the water. Responsibility in relation to the discharge of sewage or treated sewage effluent lies with the National Rivers Authority, which applies controls by means of consents issued under the Water Resources Act 1991.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being undertaken by his Department to carry out tests on contamination of shellfish fisheries with(a) sewage and (b) heavy metals and other chemicals.

  Mr. Curry
  With the co-operation of the local authorities concerned, my Department has undertaken a
  531
  comprehensive survey of the microbiological status of all known shellfish-growing waters in England and Wales. The preliminary results of this survey were published for comment in July. A revised survey will be published following discussions with shellfish growers and others now in progress. Monitoring will continue and classifications will be reviewed regularly. The aquatic environment is regularly monitored for levels of heavy metals and other chemicals and reports are published. The latest report, "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report Number 30" (ISSN 0142–2499), was published in October. A copy is available in the Library of the House. The National Rivers Authority undertakes similar monitoring.

  Agri-environmental Measures
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to the EC to ensure that a substantial proportion of the common agricultural policy budget is allocated to the agri-environment programme.

  Mr. Curry
  The level of funds to be attributed to agri-environment programmes will be decided annually along with the rest of the EC budget. It will depend on a range of factors, including uptake by member states. The Government's view will depend on the balance of such factors when each year's budget is set.

  Genetic Resources
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is currently undertaken by his Department to extend long-term protection to the crops that are poorly represented in long-term gene banks and to their wild relatives.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department currently funds a number of plant genetic resource collections, including the vegetable gene bank at Wellesbourne, Warwickshire and the collections of wild species at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Wakehurst Place. Earlier this year the Department, in collaboration with the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department, completed a review of United Kingdom policy in this area, taking account of present collections, international developments, and future requirements. The findings of that review were made publicly available and its recommendations are now being implemented with a view to improved coverage and co-ordination, value for money, and utilisation of collections.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is currently undertaken by his Department to comply with the Food and Agriculture Organisation code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department complies with this code principally through the strict controls under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 which require that only approved pesticides may be advertised, sold, supplied, stored or used. In addition the new EC Regulation 2455/92 on the Import and Export of Certain Dangerous Chemicals incorporates the prior informed consent 532
  procedure, which is based on the principles in the FAO code. The Health and Safety Commission and Exectutive is the designated national authority for the regulation.

  Grazing Management
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to introduce an incentive scheme for sheep farmers in less-favoured areas to establish grazing management schemes which include consideration for the hiring of grazing and the conservation of habitats.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government plan to introduce, under the Agri-environment Regulation, a scheme which will provide for an environmentally favourable extensification of sheep farming. This will include appropriate grazing conditions aimed at the conservation of habitats. The new scheme will supplement the beneficial effects of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme on grazing management in the less favoured areas.

  Vegetation and Wildlife
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research work and monitoring is currently being carried out by his Department on the effects of extensification upon vegetation and wildlife populations.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department's environmental research and development programme includes a number of projects which examine the effects of different forms of more extensive management practices upon both vegetation and wildlife. In addition the monitoring of schemes such as set-a-side, extensification and, particularly, environmentally sensitive areas assesses the vegetation changes and the effects on wildlife populations.

  Heather Regeneration
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to offer financial incentives to livestock farmers in less-favoured areas to fence-off certain areas of land in order to promote heather regeneration.

  Mr. Curry
  It is already our policy to promote heather regeneration within the less favoured areas: 50 per cent. grants are available under the farm and conservation grant scheme to meet the cost of fencing off moor and heathland to exclude stock and for ancillary operations to encourage heather regeneration in the fenced off areas. Our environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) scheme also encourages appropriate heather management, including in some cases the use of temporary fencing to exclude stock. Heather regeneration will be further promoted with the extension of our ESAs and the development of a new scheme to reduce livestock numbers where this will be environmentally beneficial.

  Cattle (Transport)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements have been made with the Dutch Government concerning the sealing of lorries carrying British cattle in transit to Holland before and after 1 January 1993; and what steps have been taken to protect the welfare of the animals concerned.
  533
  Mr. Soames
  We have received no formal request from the Dutch authorities about the sating of lorries carrying British cattle in transit to Holland and cattle for export are not sealed in transporters.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific criteria are used to confirm a case of BSE.

  Mr. Soames
  Diagnosis of BSE is principally by histophathological examination of brain tissue. For the majority of animals, examination is confined to a single section of the brain stem. For animals born after I8 July 1988, histopathological examination has been supplemented by examination for scrapie—associated fibrils (SAFs) from cervical spinal cord. Where suspects are the offspring of confirmed cases, diagnosis currently involves histopathological examination of whole brain and SAF extraction.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 781, how many positive cases of BSE were in (a) cows and (b) male cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  Up to 30 October 1992 in Great Britain, 72,031 cases of BSE have been confirmed in female cattle and 201 in male cattle.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the cattle offspring, born of BSE-infected mothers, as stated in the Southwood report, developed BSE.

  Mr. Soames
  The monitoring study described in paragraph 8.1 of the Southwood report has not produced any results yet as it is being conducted as a blind experiment. Field evidence derived from the BSE epidemic as a whole shows that to 9 November 1992 there are 190 confirmed BSE cases in animals which were offspring of previously confirmed cases. This incidence is the same as the incidence in cattle whose dams are unaffected.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 781, if he will publish geographical details of confirmed BSE cases.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 22 October,Official Report, column 354. Some of these cases will have been clinically suspected before the period.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 781, when the study into the amount of infected material required to be eaten to cause BSE in cattle commenced; when it will be completed; how many animals are involved in the study; what results he has available for the number of cattle developing BSE from oral challenge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This study began in January 1992. It involves four groups of 10 cattle, each group being exposed to a different dose of infected material. Its completion is dependent on the length of time before the presentation of clinical symptoms (particularly in the 534
  group receiving the smallest challenge dose, where the incubation period is expected to be the longest). So far. no cattle in the study have shown symptoms of the disease.

  Harwich Fishermen
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much notice was given to Harwich fishermen using vessels of 10 m and over of the prohibition, as from midnight of 17 November, on their catching any more sole, cod or spratts, for the rest of the month; what will happen, and for what size of vessels, in this respect in December 1992 and in January 1993; what length of notice he usually gives to fishermen on such occasions; and whether he is satisfied with the way in which Harwich fishermen were informed of the prohibition.

  Mr. Curry
  United Kingdom quotas are divided between various industry groups in accordance with a methodology agreed with the industry. In order to ensure that fish landed do not exceed the United Kingdom quota allocations, and other groups are not prejudiced, when it becomes clear that a group's allocation of any stock has been exhausted, Departments close the fishery to that group. It became clear to Departments on Monday 16 November that these closures would be necessary. Immediate action was set in train to issue licence variations suspending fishing from midnight on 17 November for these stocks until the end of 1992 by over 10 m boats. Those variations were despatched by the Department to Harwich fishermen on Wednesday 18 November. It is the Department's normal practice to notify fishermen of such changes as soon as practicable given the circumstances relating to a particular closure. Because fisheries are not closed until it is absolutely necessary to do so, it is not possible to give advance warning of such closures in every case. I am satisfied that given the circumstances Harwich fishermen were informed properly of these closures. So far as January 1993 is concerned, the current licences issued to fishermen are valid for the 1992 calendar year. New licences and new quota management arrangements will be in place for the 1993 calendar year, and fishermen will be notified in due course of the arrangements which will pertain to that year.

  Cattle
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new restrictions on trading cattle, calves or beef from the United Kingdom, have been introduced by other European countries during 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not yet available. I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Bacteria
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants have been made to the national collections of industrial and marine bacteria in each year since 1988; what grant is proposed to be made for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Under a five-year agreement made in 1988, this Department has made the following contributions towards the work of the National Collections of Industrial and Marine Bacteria (NCIMB) Ltd:
  535

  £

  January-March 1988

  39,897

  1988–89

  142,983

  1989–90

  154,100

  1990–91

  167,708

  1991–92

  184,279

  1992–93

  197–325

  The possibility of providing further support for an additional year is currently under consideration.

  Agricultural Returns
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the requests he has received from within the United Kingdom for agricultural returns to be set out in hectares rather than acres; and if he will make a statement on the application of the principle of subsidiarity in considering a change from acres to hectares.

  Mr. Curry
  All agricultural census and survey returns, grant application and claim forms sent out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are already set out in hectares. Requests for these returns to be sent out in hectares rather than acres would be redundant.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the prospects for sea defence, coast protection and land drainage schemes in Suffolk and Norfolk in 1993–94 in the light of the autumn statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Previous plans for coast protection and the National Rivers Authority's flood defence works in England have been maintained, indicating the Government's continuing commitment to reduce risks to life and to the environment. Minor reductions have been made to bring plans for local authority and internal drainage board flood defence more closely in line with actual spending in recent years.

  An allocation for capital works of £7·0 million is being made to the National Rivers Authority for Norfolk and Suffolk. The basic rate of grant remains at 55 per cent., with a 20 per cent. supplement for tidal and sea defence work.

  Provision is also available for grants to local authorities, internal drainage boards and maritime district councils in England for flood and coastal defence works. Schemes proposed by such authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk will be considered for approval and grant aid by the Department in the normal way.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Derek Strain
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the case of Mr. Derek Strain's application for a disability living allowance was first raised with the disability living allowance unit; and when the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, can expect a reply from the Benefits Agency's correspondence section.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief 536
  executive of the Benefits Agency. As the claim is a personal and confidential matter, he will reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Independent Living Fund
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the amount of money to be transferred from his Department to local authorities to compensate disabled people for the loss of the independent living fund in April 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no funds to transfer to local authorities from this Department for this purpose.

  European Court
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases in the European Court of Justice have been won by his Department in the last five years.

  Mr. Burt
  In the last years only two cases against the Secretary of State for Social Security have been referred to the European Court of Justice. Judgment was given this year in both cases and in each the court ruled in favour of this Department.

  Charter Safeguards
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra charter safeguards he envisages to protect the dignity of those who receive state benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We do not plan any extra charter safeguards. The Benefits Agency customer charter gives a commitment to treat all customers courteously and with respect as well as delivering benefits speedily and accurately. A refurbishment programme to upgrade public caller areas to provide increased privacy, comfort and convenience is under way. More than half of the offices will have been upgraded by the spring.

  Claimants in Hospital
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the basis for the setting of the benefit level for people with no dependents after one year in hospital at £10·85 per week; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For recipients of most social security benefits who have no dependents and have been in hospital for more than one year, the amount paid is equivalent to 20 per cent. of the basic rate of retirement pension.

  We consider this amount to be sufficent to meet the personal needs of long-stay hospital in-patients for minor items not provided by the hospital such as newspapers and confectionery.

  Claimants of No Fixed Abode
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of(a) sickness benefit, (b) invalidity benefit and (c) income support are receiving giro cheques over office counters because they are of no fixed abode.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department commissioned 320 reports from external consultants in 1989–90; 391 in 1990–91 and 457 in 1991–92. For the convenience of the hon. Member, I have placed in the Library of the House separate lists of the reports for each of these years. Information concerning subsequent work commissioned as a result of these reports could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Halons
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish halon banks to assist in the recovery and recycling of halon.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are working closely with the fire industry and halon users on ways in which halon banking in the United Kingdom can be facilitated and are also playing an active role both within the EC and internationally on discussions on banking.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ban the production and import of halons into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The parties to the Montreal protocol are currently meeting in Copenhagen to discuss the phase out of ozone-depleting substances, including halons. The United Kingdom, together with its EC partners, is calling for production of halons to be phased out by the end of 1994 at the latest except for continued production for essential use.

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the Government of Greece concerning membership of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

  Mr. Maclean
  We and other EC partners have regularly urged the Greek Government to become a party to CITES. I am pleased to say, however, that the Greek Government have passed a law enabling Greece to ratify CITES, and formally become a party to the convention on 6 January 1993.

  Ultra-violet Radiation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current system of UVB monitoring; and what plans he has for improvements.
  538
  Mr. Maclean
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has carried out continuous monitoring of ultraviolet radiation in the United Kingdom for three and a half years.

  The Department of the Environment has supported the spectral measurement of ultraviolet radiation at Reading university for two and a half years. It is planned to continue this programme.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to enable the National Radiological Protection Board to purchase equipment that is capable of detecting the levels of UVB increase resulting from present ozone depletion.

  Mr. Maclean
  Spectral radiometers have the potential for detection of increases in UVB that may result from ozone depletion. The Department of the Environment has supported the spectral measurement of UVB at Reading university since 1989 and will continue to do so. There is no plan at the moment to support the purchase of identical equipment for the National Radiological Protection Board.

  UN Conventions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make representations to the Secretary General of the United Nations seeking clarification on the compliance arrangements and verification procedures for(a) the framework convention on climate change and (b) the convention on biological diversity.

  Mr. Maclean
  The intergovernmental negotiating committee will resume its work next month to elaborate the framework convention on climate change and prepare for decisions at the first meeting of its parties.

  Subject to approval by the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council in May 1993, an intergovernmental committee on the convention on biology diversity will be established. In the interim, UNEP will establish official level working groups to take forward the necessary further work on the convention.

  Packaging
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been undertaken by his Department to date upon the implementation of(a) waste-reducing packaging design and (b) the introduction of landfill and packaging taxation.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) None. The Government believe that it is in industry's own commercial interest to undertake research and introduce techniques and technologies to minimise the quantity of packaging and other material which ends up as waste.

  (b) The Government have commissioned studies on the use of economic instruments for recycling and on landfill charges.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it hs policy to ensure that the proceeds from council house sales, including capital receipts currently set aside, are earmarked for the development of new social housing within each local authority area.
  539
  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his autumn statement a relaxation of the rules governing the use by local authorities of their capital receipts. In consequence, authorities are able to spend 100 per cent. of most capital receipts generated between 13 November 1992 and 31 December 1993.

  This initiative will proceed in conjunction with our plans for a capital partnership in England between central and local government to enhance the value for money from these substantial extra resources. These proposals represent an opportunity for the provision of additional new social housing, particularly through the sponsorship by local authorities of housing association development, as well as for substantial new expenditure on the renovation of existing housing.

  Recycling
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to oblige shops and offices to collect their waste paper and cardboard for recycling.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Solid Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish targets for the reduction of solid waste production within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government advise industry on how to reduce and minimise waste; however, we have no plans to set targets at present.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his original estimates for local authorities' capital receipts, showing for each authority both gross receipts and usable receipts and showing separately housing receipts for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Howard
  I have not made any estimates of these receipts at the level of individual local authorities. Local authorities have provided their own forecasts of the receipts they expect to receive during 1992–93. I am arranging for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his latest estimate for each local authority of(a) the gross receipts from (i) housing and (ii) other assets from 1 April to 12 November, (b) the gross receipts from (i) housing and (ii) other assets from 13 November to 31 March 1993, (c) the gross receipts from (i) housing and (ii) other assets from 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 and (d) the gross receipts from (i) housing and (ii) other asets from 1 January 1994 to 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Howard
  I have not made any estimates of these receipts at the level of individual local authorities.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many applications for gipsy sites have been turned down since the Caravan Sites Act 1968 became law;

  (2) if he will list the locations of the gipsy sites established since 1968, indicating (a) which were subject to public inquiries and (b) in which ones the local authority concerned- applied for outline planning permission first before applying for detailed planning permission;

  (3) how many gipsy sites have been established in England and Wales since the Caravan Sites act 1968 became law.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information is not available in the form requested. In January 1992 there were 306 local authority gipsy sites in England and Wales acommodating nearly 6,000 gipsy caravans, and nearly 3,000 caravans on authroised private sites. I have placed in the Library a copy of the Department's list of local authority gipsy sites in England, as at January 1992, compiled from data supplied by local authorities.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total number of occupied caravan sites by local authority area, which would be affected by legislation implementing the proposals of the 1992 consultation paper on the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Baldry
  The consultation paper states that the Government expect existing gipsy caravan sites to continue in being.

  North-East Atlantic (Discharges)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to ensure the new levels of discharges, agreed in Paris in the new convention to protect the north-east Atlantic, can be met.

  Mr. Maclean
  The new convention to protect the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic does not itself set any "new levels of discharges". The Government and the regulatory authorities will be using the powers at their disposal to fulfil obligations established under the convention and its predecessors.

  Land Quality Statements
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that all planning applications are accompanied by land quality statements.

  Mr. Baldry
  The relationship between a proposed development and the quality of land affected can be material to decisions on planning applications, and local planning authorities have powers to ensure they obtain all the information they need to take proper decisions.

  Water Supplies (Contamination)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the incidence of bacterial contamination of water supplies in each of the last five years in each of the areas covered by the present water companies.
  541
  Mr. Maclean
  Information on drinking water quality in England and Wales during 1990 and 1991 is contained in the annual reports of the chief inspector, the drinking water inspectorate, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Information on earlier years is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Castle Vale Housing Action Trust
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision on the future of the proposed Castle Vale housing action trust, Birmingham.

  Mr. Baldry
  An announcement on the proposal for a housing action trust on the Castle Vale estate in Birmingham will be made once the assessment of the feasibility work is complete.

  Water Companies (Safeguards)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the memorandum on safeguards in the operation and management of public waterworks still applies to the privatised water companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The memorandum has been replaced by "Operational Guidelines for the Protection of Drinking Water Supplies", published in 1988 by, and obtainable from, the Water Services Association. The advice given is not mandatory. It complements the legal requirement to provide wholesome water.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has carried out in the last five years into the possibility of cross contamination in the water industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  During the last five years, the Department has commissioned two research projects about backflow which could lead to contamination of water supplies. The first, which started in 1988, is to evaluate the degree of protection afforded by a range of mechanical devices designed to prevent backflow. The second, which started recently, is to study information on events which might lead to backflow. Both are due for completion in March 1993.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the method of basing water charges on the rateable value of properties.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following the publication of my right hon. Friend's paper, "Using Water Wisely", we have received numerous representations about the possible bases for calculating water charges, including on the use of property values.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations his Department has carried out into the possible methods of charging for water and sewerage services.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has co-funded with the water industry 11 of the national water metering trials.542
  Following widespread consultation, the Director General of Water Services has issued guidance to water companies about the development of their charging strategies. It is now for each water company to decide on its preferred method of charging in the light of the circumstances in its area, subject to legal limitations such as the obligation to avoid discriminatory charges and the prohibition on using rateable values after the year 2000.

  Leasehold Properties
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each housing authority in England the total number of leasehold properties.

  Mr. Baldry
  No information is held centrally on the total number of leasehold properties in each local authority area.

  Local Government (Legislation)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the public Acts of Parliament passed since the general election of 1979 which have affected the duties, powers and responsibilities of local government.

  Mr. Squire
  Public General Acts of Parliament between June 1979 and the end of the last Session of Parliament which affect local authorities in England include those on the following list:

  Charter Trustees Act 1985

  Further Education Act 1985

  Food and Environment Protection Act 1985

  Representation of the People Act 1985

  Local government Act 1985

  Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1985

  Wildlife and Countryside (Service of Notices) Act 1985

  Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

  Transport Act 1985

  Housing Act 1985+

  Housing (Consequential Provisions) Act 1985+

  Housing Associations Act 19851

  Weights and Measures Act 19851

  Highways (Amendment) Act 1985

  Education (Amendment) Act 1986

  Museum of London Act 1986

  Local Government Act 1986

  Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986

  Drainage Rates (Disabled Persons) Act 1986

  Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986

  Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986

  Road Traffic Regulation (Parking) Act 1986

  Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986

  Airports Act 1986

  Disabled Persons (services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986

  Education Act 1986

  Rate Support Grants Act 1986

  Education (No. 2) Act 1986

  Housing and Planning Act 1986

  Public Order Act 1986

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987

  Rate Support Grants Act 1987

  Local Government Finance Act 1987

  Reverter of Sites Act 1987

  Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987

  Local Government Act 1987

  Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988

  Local Government Act 1988

  Coroners Act 1988+

  Environment and Safety Information Act 1988

  Education Reform Act 1988

  Local Government Finance Act 1988

  Housing Act 1988

  543

  Rate Support Grants Act 1988

  Road Traffic Act 1988

  Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

  School Teachers Pay and Conditions No. 2 Act 1988

  Water Act 1989

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1989

  Children Act 1989+

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 19901

  Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 19901

  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990+

  Town and Country Planning Act 19901

  Environmental Protection Act 1990 Food Safety Act 1990

  National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990

  Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Act 1991

  Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991

  Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Act 1991

  Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991

  Planning and Compensation Act 1991

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

  New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

  Road Traffic Act 1991

  Deer Act 19911

  Land Drainage Act 19911

  Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act 19911

  Education Act 1979

  Justices of the Peace Act 19791

  Representation of the People Act 1980 Child Care Act 1980

  Foster Children Act 19801

  Residential Homes Act 19801

  Police Negotating Board Act 1980

  Education Act 1980

  Transport Act 1980

  Coroners Act 1980

  Magistrates Courts Act 19801

  Housing Act 1980

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Highways Act 19801

  European Assembly Elections Act 1981 Water Act 1981

  Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981

  Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1981

  Animal Health Act 1981

  Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act 1981

  Fisheries Act 1981

  Representation of the People Act 1981

  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981

  Zoo Licensing Act 1981

  Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act 1981

  Education Act 1981

  New Towns Act 19811

  Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 19811

  Acquisition of Land Act 19811

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  Travel Concessions (London) Act 1982

  Fire Service College Board (Abolition) Act 1982

  Children's Homes Act 1982

  Planning Inquiries (Attendance of the Public) Act 1982

  Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982

  Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act 1982

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

  Local Government Finance Act 1982

  Derelict Land Act 1982

  Representation of the People Act 19831

  Water Act 1983

  Level Crossing Act 1983

  Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1983

  Mobile Homes Act 1983

  Litter Act 1983

  Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1983

  Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983

  Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983

  Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Act 1983

  Town and Country Planning Act 1984

  Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984

  544

  Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 19841

  Registered Homes Act 1984

  Road Traffic Regulation Act 19841

  Housing and Building Control Act 1984 Food Act 19841

  London Regional Transport Act 1984 Rates Act 1984

  Cycle Tracks Act 1984

  Animal Health and Welfare Act 1984

  Housing Defects Act 1984

  Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984

  Building Act 19841

  New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985

  London Regional Transport (Amendment) Act 1985

  Mineral Workings Act 1985

  Cinemas Act 19851

  Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Act 1985

  Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985

  Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

  Further and Higher Education Act 1992

  Local Government Act 1992

  Local Government Finance Act 1992

  Severn Bridges Act 1992

  Traffic Calming Act 1992

  1Consolidation Act

  Note: Not all the foregoing Acts were based on Bills introduced by the Government.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what comparisons he is able to make, nationally and district by district, between levels of council tax and the levels which would have been necessary for domestic rates for 1993–94.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: The average domestic rate bill in England for 1993–94, based on 1989–90 rate bills uprated by the GDP deflator, would have been £637. But I intend to make no predictions of council tax levels for 1993–94. These are a matter for individual local authorities.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of England's population live in(a) derelict land clearance areas and (b) assisted areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the travel-to-work areas that are derelict land clearance areas but not assisted areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Derelict land clearance areas are not defined by travel to work area. The following travel to work areas include areas which have been designated as derelict land clearance areas and which are not assisted areas.

  Alfreton and Ashfield

  Keighley

  Barrow in Furnees

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  Berwick

  Leeds

  Burnley

  Leek

  Buxton

  London

  Calderdale

  Macclesfield

  Carlisle

  Manchester

  Castleford and Pontefract

  Mansfield

  Chesterfield

  Matlock

  Clitheroe

  Newark

  Crewe

  Northwich

  Derby

  Nottingham

  Goole and Selby

  Pendle

  Huddersfield

  Preston

  545

  Retford

  Uttoxeter and Ashbourne

  St Austell

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  Stafford

  Warrington

  Stoke

  Whitehaven

  Truro

  Climate Change
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) of 27 October,Official Report, column 540, when he now
  546
  expects the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty on climate change agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: The position has not changed since my answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on 27 October, Official Report, column 540.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
Lord MacAndrew Lord MacAndrew —Took the Oath.

Plutonium
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the purpose of the international trade in radioactive plutonium.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, as is the case with any commodity, international transactions in civil plutonium arise from the wish of the participants to pursue their commercial interests.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness entirely unaware of the widespread concern throughout the world about the international trade in reprocessed plutonium? Is she also unaware that the International Atomic Energy Agency has stated:
"The excess of recycled plutonium poses a major political and security problem world-wide"?
Does the noble Baroness consider that in contributing to that excess the British and French Governments may reasonably be regarded as spreading concern and alarm throughout the world? Is she entirely unaware of these matters?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, obviously I hear expressions of different viewpoints. Perhaps I could point out that whether or not the spent fuel is reprocessed is a matter for the owners of the material to decide on safety, technical and economic grounds.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, am I to gather from that reply that the noble Baroness is unaware that reprocessed plutonium is barred from the territorial waters of the United States, from South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and other Pacific and Latin American countries and from the Panama Canal? Does she understand that these cargoes are regarded as completely undesirable and extremely dangerous to the world community as a whole?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord lists the views of other governments. I can only represent this Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do the ending of agreements and the closing down of the Dounreay fast breeder reactor in any way affect the position and attitude of Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry but I did not catch the end of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat the question. Do the ending of agreements about fast breeder reactors and the closing down of Dounreay power station, which uses this fuel, affect the Government's attitude to the whole business of the transportation of this fuel?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government decided in 1988 that the Dounreay prototype fast reactor would close in 1994. We are simply moving that decision.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that more than 50 tonnes of separated plutonium is currently held in store at Sellafield? Is it not further the case that in the 1990s world production of separated plutonium will leave a surplus to civil requirements of some 110 tonnes and that the surplus will largely be stored in the United Kingdom and France? If that is the case, can the noble Baroness tell us why we are producing and storing all that plutonium when there is no civil market for it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the current UK stock of plutonium at the end of March 1991 was 33 tonnes. Whether or not spent fuel is reprocessed is, as I said, a matter for the owners of that material. I assure your Lordships that this material is very safely stored at Sellafield.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that reprocessed uranium from commercial reactors is not weapons grade?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to do that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, this is not the question at issue, but perhaps I may press the noble Baroness a little further. Is it not the case that during the 1990s some 70 tonnes of civil plutonium is liable to be used in light water reactors, which are going out of fashion? Therefore, is it not further the case that there will be a substantial surplus which has to he stored and the only places capable of storing it are Sellafield, France and Russia? Are the Government satisfied that storing and perhaps trading in this material is a sensible way to go about things?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am not at all certain what the noble Lord is asking me to say. This material is recycled and is stored. That is a fact of life. I believe that what matters to your Lordships is that it is safely managed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene, with your Lordships' leave, to ask the noble Baroness whether, in the light of the fact that all other countries apart from the United Kingdom, France and Russia have for safety and political reasons sought to minimise the storage of plutonium, the United Kingdom is satisfied that we should be the dump where that material is stored?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, despite the emotion, I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish me to say that the United Kingdom is wrong and that other countries are right.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as someone who knows nothing about the subject but who has listened to such Questions, I ask the Minister to assure the House that the Government take an interest in the matter and do not leave private enterprise to do what it likes. The implication is that the Government have washed their hands of this extremely dangerous substance. Will the Minister reassure the House that that is not the case?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to reassure the noble Lord that that is not the case at all. We are most anxious to ensure that the material is fully subject to international safeguards.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have a copy of yesterday's edition of Japan's Sunday Times in which concern about this issue is expressed? Does she agree that, if as seems likely, the trade is stopped as a result of the extremely dangerous nature of the cargo, we shall be left holding a baby with a half life of 20,000 years? That matter if nothing else must concern the Government.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the source of his material. Civil plutonium would be transferred abroad only if the country in question were able to give a satisfactory account of how it would be used.

European Court of Human Rights
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support the proposal to create a single European Court of Human Rights as a full-time body, in view of the increase in the number of applications submitted to the Commission and the Court.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have made and will continue to make a constructive contribution to discussion within the Council of Europe on reform of the control machinery of the European Convention on Human Rights. We remain committed to finding a long-term solution to the question of reform and will aim to take forward the discussions on this issue during our presidency of the Council of Europe.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for indicating that the Government remain open-minded on this issue. Does she agree that, as regards the countries of eastern and central Europe which have recently joined the Council of Europe, and in particular applicant countries such as Slovenia and Bosnia, it is important that their new-found democracies and rule of law should be supported by the mechanism of the independent European Court of Human Rights? Does she further agree that it is of the utmost importance that the Court should be as efficient and cost-effective as possible?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. As regards human rights, our main
792
concern has always been to ensure that the machinery of the European Convention on Human Rights operates more speedily and effectively. In particular, we must ensure that any agreed reforms to that convention genuinely meet those criteria. It is critical that new members are able to align their legislation with the convention. That is why we are taking so much trouble to try to get these reforms right.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in this country there is a great deal of anxiety about the log jams and delays involved in the present system? For how long can we remain the odd nation out? Is the Minister aware that nations such as Bulgaria and Hungary are incorporating the convention into their law? Is it not time that we took a fresh look at the matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Question is not about incorporation into our law; it is about the future of the Court and the Commission of Human Rights. It is about whether they should be formed into a single body—"the merger process", as it known—or whether we should have a two-tier system such as that proposed by the Dutch and Swedish Governments. One of the ways in which we hope that it will be made more efficient is for the Commission to give binding judgments in certain cases and also for the right to refer cases to the court to remain with the member nations; that is, cases which are more complicated or which obviously set new precedents. We need to ensure that the whole system is more efficient and that is what we are trying to solve.

Police: Personal Protection Devices
2.48 p.m.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the increasing number of armed assaults on the police during the perfor-mance of their duties, they will consider making available personal protection devices such as RAPEL which emits a disabling effluvium.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, devices which emit a disabling effluvium are relatively novel as a matter of protection. Home Office scientists undertake research into new products and I have asked them to look at this one. Decisions about the selection and purchase of equipment are, of course, the responsibility of chief officers.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of a product called Mace, which is freely used in America and Europe? The intention of those who have imported RAPEL from America is to stop the activity of an assailant without inflicting injury upon him. Unfortunately, Mace inflicts injuries to the lungs and to the eyes. Will the Minister consider whether that alternative might be used?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, under Section 5(1) (b) of the Fire Arms Act 1968, any weapon, of whatever description, which is designed or adapted for the

793
discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other matter is a prohibited weapon. I believe that the item to which my noble friend referred in his supplementary question would fall into that category. Whether or not the item referred to in the original Question would do so is a different matter because it is designed to be broken against the carrier's own body rather than to be sprayed on the attacker. Therefore, the court may decide that it is not a weapon.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, have the police requested this equipment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether the police have requested it. Periodically we invite the Home Office police scientific development branch to carry out research into various items. One advantage of RAPEL is that it gives off the most appalling smell. It is suggested that it should be used by ladies as protection against rape. I understand that the phial shatters and, in the words of the manufacturers, it emits the foulest, putrid and overpowering smell which is unimaginably awful. The manufacturers go on to say that, whatever the thoughts of the attacker are before sensing the smell, those thoughts are very soon forgotten. It is one matter for potential attackers to arm themselves, but whether or not it is a suitable weapon for the police is another matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether further thought is being given to products such as Mace? The noble Earl may be aware that in the United States advertisements offer two cans at a cheaper price than the price of one. Is the noble Earl aware that a number of cases have come to court here in which tourists were carrying Mace because they were not aware that the product was not allowed in this country? Is our ban because of the danger to the lungs of the human being, as described by my noble friend Lord Constantine, or are we merely opposed to the general principle? Women value some form of protection.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if women wish to give themselves some form of protection and not be contrary to the law, they may try the product mentioned in my noble friend's Question. Many funny things happen in America. If friends of my noble friend were to be carrying Mace in England, it would be found to be a prohibited weapon for the reasons which I have given. It is a noxious fluid which passes onto a person. That is slightly different from using an aerosol hairspray, which is used for different purposes but can also be used for the purposes which my noble friend has in mind.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not the case that those devices which emit disabling effluvia are only of use to deter at close range attackers who, like rapists, intend to stay at close quarters for a certain amount of time? That is not the most likely scenario for those who attack the police, which is the subject of the Question. Such people tend either to hit, kick, stab or shoot and then get away as fast as they can.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point. As I understand it, the product in question is an oil which depends for its success upon a chemical reaction with the skin. It is similar to ladies putting on scent. It smells better after it has been on the body. This product operates in a similar manner but with rather different effects. The noble Lord suggests that the product may not be suitable for use by police officers. But if they are being attacked and if they had this product, I gather that it would repel the attacker just as it would repel other people. That is why I have suggested that this matter should be investigated.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, most police officers that I know would not wish to be armed with any sort of gas as a means of self-protection. They feel that the early introduction of the side-handled baton might give them more protection, as by far the highest percentage of attacks made on police are from people armed with knives. Can the noble Earl say whether the current Home Office studies on those devices are anywhere near completion?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand that police officers do not wish to be armed with a gas. Moreover, many of them would not wish their colleagues to be armed with this product. Not many of them would wish to accompany a colleague in a van who had been so sprayed. With regard to the side-handled baton, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary last Friday confirmed that he did not consider it to be an appropriate weapon for police use. It is aggressive in appearance, difficult to carry and would alter fundamentally the style of policing in this country.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the problems in North London is not how to repel the police but how to attract them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course. That is why the police must be adequately prepared to protect themselves. The noble Lord is looking uncomfortable.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I was saying that we never see any policemen. We have no reason to repel them. We would rather attract them into the area.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my modest intellectual capacity had not reached that point. I had not realised that the noble Lord had asked me such an offensive and irrelevant question. There are many policemen about.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, the manufacturers of RAPEL, which is being made under licence here from America, tell me that the Home Office Crime Prevention Centre at Stafford has tested and is testing it. Anyone who is interested may refer to Chief Inspector Brian Hewitt of that centre who will keep them informed of the up-to-date position.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is as near to a commercial as one could possibly get. My noble friend is right that this matter was referred to the Home Office Crime Prevention Centre. Because I thought my

795
noble friend might refer to it, and being a prudent kind of fellow, I asked what the conclusions were. It has been concluded that the smell is so vile that it is beyond description and it could act as an extremely effective deterrent for some people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would care to reconsider his answer to my noble friend Lord Stallard. It may be that he thinks that my noble friend's question was wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But I do not believe that he would wish it to be recorded that he thought that my noble friend was being offensive and irrelevant.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was my first reaction to the fact that I had not realised the import of the question. It was not irrelevant or offensive, but it had nothing much to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Examination Results: Publication
2.57 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the concerns raised by teachers, parents and local authorities about the publication of raw examinations results.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, publication of examination results has been widely welcomed as a further contribution to the debate about standards in our schools. We want parents to have as much information as possible about all aspects of schools. Examination results are an important part of that package.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not disagree with her about giving parents as much information as is possible. However, does the Minister not agree that the way in which the results have been presented has caused much anxiety to parents, teachers and local authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what the noble Lord is referring to. It may be worth while to put the whole matter into perspective. It has been a phenomenally successful exercise. There were a quarter of a million factors and 4,600 schools. There have been 82 complaints, of which 61 have been investigated so far. Of those 61, five have been substantiated and of those five, two were typing errors in the names of the schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the publication of statistics in this form has not been widely welcomed but widely denigrated by the majority of the national press as well as those who have any expertise in this sphere? When the statistics are published in local newspapers, as the Government say they intend to do, will they check with all the schools concerned as to the accuracy of the statistics, since there seem to have been a number of errors? Will
796
the Minister ensure also as regards the publication of statistics that it is made absolutely clear when a school has no sixth form or when a school is a special school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can confirm that every school in the country was checked. As we investigated many of the complaints we found that the errors were mainly on the part of schools in verifying the information. Further, contrary to what the noble Baroness said, the tables were widely welcomed by the press. Ten leaders of newspapers came out overwhelmingly in favour of the information being made public; only two leaders were against, one being the Daily Mirror. Only one of those 10 newspapers that came out overwhelmingly in favour decided on Sunday to reverse that view, and that was the Independent on Sunday. Otherwise there has been wide acclaim for the information being made public.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if examination results are to be published at all, is it not better that they be raw rather than cooked?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree that they should be raw rather than cooked. But as time moves on it will be possible to make judgments regarding how far a child has travelled in terms of his or her progress in education whatever the base he or she started from, whether that be a low ability or a high ability base.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on GATT. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Astor who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Windsor Castle fire.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Motion in the name of the Baroness Turner of Camden set down for 25th November shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey:My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The essential purpose of the Agriculture Bill is to improve agricultural marketing. Its provisions are founded on the belief that those who are engaged in a specific industry are in the best position to define their needs and that they should not be constrained more than is necessary by actions of government. While government have an inescapable duty to look after certain vital matters such as the safety of food and the fairness of competition, they must always strive, within those constraints, to give the maximum possible scope to the efforts of individuals, or groups of individuals in voluntary association, to establish the conditions of their prosperity. That means a presumption in favour of giving them the freedom to back their commercial judgment and the responsibility that goes with it.
The improvements in milk marketing which the Bill would make possible by ending the statutory milk marketing schemes are to be seen in that light, together with the abolition of government financial guarantees for potatoes and wool and the provision for introducing a scheme to grant-aid group marketing initiatives.
The powers provided to end the potato marketing scheme and wind up the Potato Marketing Board are only enabling. If activated, however, they would, as in the case of milk, place responsibility on the board for proposing successor arrangements.
Turning first to milk, it is right that I should declare a personal interest as a registered milk producer. Part I of the Bill provides for the revocation of the four statutory milk marketing schemes in Great Britain and their replacement by purely voluntary marketing arrangements. The schemes came into being in 1933 and 1934. The objective in each case was to give dairy producers the collective security and market strength which had previously been singularly lacking. To that end the milk marketing boards were granted the exclusive right to purchase, and hence to sell, all the milk produced in their respective areas.
That statutory monopoly remains in place today. In recent years, however, the feeling has been growing, not only within government but within the dairy industry itself, that the rigid structure of rules and regulations which necessarily underpins the milk marketing schemes—necessarily, because we are dealing here with a statutory monopoly—is no longer in the industry's best interests. There are plenty of examples to show that things are not as they should be. Despite our favourable climate, the structural advantages of our dairy industry in terms of size, and despite a lower self-sufficiency in milk in this country
798
than in, say, Germany, France, or the Netherlands, our producers' returns have not been among the best in the Community as one would expect, but at best in the middle of the pack. Retail prices are not noticeably lower than in other member states, however, which indicates that the system is failing to obtain the best value from our limited supply of milk. High levels of import penetration in high value-added products point to the same conclusion.
There are other indications too that all is not well. There have been many instances reported in the press of cheesemakers with a top quality product to sell and a substantial order book but without supplies of milk for months at a time. Some said that they would have been willing to pay more for their milk in order to obtain supplies but the rules of the scheme did not allow for that. At the same time, some of the major processors have been able, under the EC rules governing the boards, to withhold milk from recall to the domestic market in order to export it in the form of low-value bulk products with the aid of a large subsidy from the taxpayer. There has also been a steady stream of complaints from producers and others that their attempts to exploit the few freedoms open to them under the scheme are frustrated, if not by reluctance on the part of the boards, then by the legal and technical complexities of the system. Indeed, an attempt by the England and Wales board and the Dairy Trade Federation to give market forces a bigger say in the selling of milk—an exercise known as "New Ways"—itself foundered largely for the same reason. Even though "New Ways" was commercially sensible and desirable, it would, as originally conceived, have transgressed against the principle of non-discrimination by giving an advantage to existing purchasers of milk over potential new entrants. It was therefore not acceptable.
The failure of "New Ways" demonstrates, better than anything else could, the need to move to more flexible arrangements which allow those engaged in the industry to back their own commercial judgment. The dairy market itself is changing rapidly. The days are long since gone when British milk was consumed almost exclusively as butter, cheddar cheese and silver top milk. We now consume yoghurt, fromage frais and a large range of other fresh products and soft cheeses. Approximately 42 per cent. of drinking milk in England and Wales is purchased in skimmed or semi-skimmed form, as against 2 per cent. in 1982. Doorstep delivery in England and Wales has shrunk from 86 per cent. to only 60 per cent. of total liquid milk sales over the same period. Our processors are facing intensified competition as the single market nears completion. And we shall soon be faced with the advent of standardised whole milk.
Those developments, taken together, are putting great pressure on our monolithic marketing arrange-ments, which grew up in totally different circumstances. What was a commodity market has become a brand-dominated consumer market, and one which is no longer isolated from the rest of Europe.
The system is engulfed by change. The European Court of Justice will rule next year on whether or not

799
low fat milk falls within the boards' exclusive purchasing right. If it rules otherwise the boards themselves believe that it will be impossible to sustain the operation of the schemes. But even if the case is won there are few in the industry who believe it to be possible or desirable to keep the schemes going for much longer.
The Government's concern has been to safeguard the livelihoods of producers, including a great many small family farms for whom the milk cheque is crucial, and the vitality and competitiveness of the processing sector, which is important for the consumer, for jobs and for the balance of payments. If we do not organise change now, an increasingly competitive market will force change on an unready industry, not in an orderly way, but damagingly. Since it is the milk marketing boards which fall to be wound up if the schemes are ended, it is to the boards that we looked for proposals. We made clear, however, that change must lead to more, not less, competition; to more open markets, greater choice and to more flexibility in the market.
In April this year all five milk marketing boards presented government with proposals for change to non-statutory milk marketing arrangements. Each board proposed that it should be succeeded by a single successor co-operative in its area, membership of which would be entirely voluntary for producers. Each co-operative would purchase its members' milk and sell it to milk processors and other users. Each board proposed that some of its assets should be transferred to its successor body but that provision should also be made for the distribution of part of the assets to registered producers in recognition of the loss of their existing interest in their milk marketing board.
The England and Wales board proposed that its processing subsidiary, Dairy Crest, should be separated from and independent of the board's successor. The plan is that it should be partly owned by dairy producers with additional finance provided by stock market flotation. The other boards, which are much smaller than the England and Wales board, proposed to retain their processing arms and preserve more or less their present structure but without the statutory monopoly. Government invited views on those proposals from interested organisations in August and received a substantial number of responses. Virtually all of them welcomed the proposed move to more open and competitive marketing arrangements in England and Wales, and the proposed separation of Dairy Crest.
I want now to talk in more detail about how the Bill would bring about change to milk marketing arrangements in Great Britain. Northern Ireland is not dealt with directly in the Bill but Clause 54 makes provision for Part I to be extended to the Province by Order in Council.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the England and Wales milk marketing scheme to be revoked on 1st October 1994 and the three Scottish schemes on 1st April 1994. Before then and, to be more precise, by 31st December 1993, each board may, under Clause 2, submit for Ministers' consideration a reorganisation
800
scheme dealing with the reorganisation of the arrangements relating to the marketing of milk in its area and in particular with the transfer of its assets, rights and liabilities to one or more successor bodies, to registered producers or to both.
The deadlines which I have mentioned for revocation of the schemes are not in fact immutable. They provide a realistic timetable for change, bearing in mind the substantial amount of work needing to be done before a reorganisation scheme could be implemented by a board. In the case of England and Wales, the somewhat later deadline reflects the likely need to allow time for the flotation on the stock market of Dairy Crest. The deadlines for revocation are, however, capable of extension by order, to allow for the unexpected, up to but not beyond 31st December 1995. It would also be open to a board to propose an earlier date than that laid down.
Your Lordships will also no doubt wish to give particular scrutiny to Clause 3, which lays down the conditions that must be fulfilled before Ministers decide whether to approve a reorganisation scheme submitted by a board, and the matters to which they must have regard in reaching their decision. They must first satisfy themselves that the board has taken reasonable steps to bring the principles of its scheme to the attention of registered producers; that the scheme contains the information specified in Schedule 1; and that the proposed trading practices of any successor bodies take account of the interests of milk purchasers. This latter point is to be judged on the basis of a statement which must, under Clause 2, accompany the submission.
Subject to satisfaction on those points, Ministers must decide whether the reorganisation scheme ought to be approved, having regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, a number of specific considerations. These include, and I paraphrase: the interests of consumers and producers; the desirability of making reasonable provision for the distribution of assets to registered producers; the desirability of ensuring that the board's liabilities can be met whether they are retained or transferred; and the competition implica-tions of the proposals in so far as they are a matter for agriculture Ministers. In this latter regard I should make clear that while the agriculture Ministers would wish to avoid giving their approval to a structure which was inherently open to challenge in the courts, the law of this country as it relates to fair trading is concerned more with the actual behaviour of a body than with its structure. It would be for the competition authorities to monitor the trading practices of the boards' successor bodies once they had started trading.
Various clauses in the Bill lay down the procedures to be followed by the boards and by Ministers for obtaining and granting approval of a scheme, for refusing approval, for agreeing modifications, varia-tions and, if necessary, withdrawal of an approved scheme. There are technical provisions to facilitate the transfer of the boards' assets under an approved scheme and to deal with various points arising in respect of taxation treatment.

801
The Bill further provides for the survival of the boards in residuary form, with a suitably modified constitution, after the transfer of their assets in order to complete remaining tasks. There are procedures for Ministers to monitor the implementation of an approved reorganisation scheme and to ensure, as far as is practicable, that a residuary board is left with sufficient assets to meet its liabilities.
Noble Lords will expect me to say something of the Government's attitude towards the milk marketing boards' present proposals. I will have more to say about that when I come to wind up. For the moment I will say only that the proposals of the England and Wales board, in common with those of their Scottish counterparts, would achieve the essential objective of ending the statutory monopoly and creating more freedom in the marketplace: freedom to choose and freedom to compete. For the first time in 60 years producers would be free to sell their milk to whomever they wanted, and purchasers would be equally free to buy milk direct from producers.
I have no doubt that in the new world after the abolition of the boards many individual producers will want to take advantage of those freedoms by selling direct to dairy companies and other users or by undertaking joint marketing initiatives. Some of them may take advantage of any grants which may be made available under Part III of the Bill to form local groups. I believe that there is an abundance of innovative talent ready to exploit the new freedoms by developing local initiatives and marketing local products. I see no reason at all for producers to fear change.
I now turn to Part II of the Bill, which deals with the potato marketing scheme. This has, in very general terms, the same form as Part I in that it would allow the Potato Marketing Board to come forward with proposals for certain of its functions, together with its assets and liabilities, to be transferred to a successor body or bodies.
The provisions in Part II of the Bill are enabling only, and in that respect significantly different from the provisions in respect of milk. No decision has been taken on the future of the potato marketing scheme. The Bill merely provides a trigger for action should Ministers at some future date decide to act.
It may well be asked, then, why these powers are being taken now. In Our Farming Future, the Government announced their intention of continuing to keep the scheme under review in the light of developments within Europe and elsewhere. One development which might make it impossible for the board to continue in its present form would be the introduction of an EC market regime for potatoes. A proposal seems likely to be put to the Council of Ministers sooner rather than later. At present Ministers may only revoke the scheme if potato producers vote to bring it to an end, or as a result of a report by a committee of investigation set up under the 1958 Act. The present Bill would give Ministers the powers they lack and allow for board activities, such as research and development and promotion, to be
802
passed on to a successor body, should the board's regulatory powers disappear; for instance, on the introduction of an EC regime for potatoes.
Part II of the Bill operates by empowering the Ministers to decide by order that the scheme should be revoked. From the date when the order was made the board would be precluded from setting any further quotas, and would have a period of six months (which could be extended) during which it could come forward with a scheme for transferring its assets and liabilities to a successor body or bodies. If it did so, Ministers would judge the proposed scheme against various criteria—including the interests of registered producers —and then either approve the scheme, suggest modifications which the board may incor-porate, or reject it. Once a scheme was approved, a vesting day would be set for transfer of assets and liabilities to the successor body or bodies, after which the scheme would be revoked. The board would remain in existence in attenuated form after revocation to deal with its winding up, and would then be dissolved by order.
If the board did not come forward with a transfer scheme, or if its scheme were finally rejected, Ministers would petition the court to wind up the board under the existing provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act and the scheme. In this case, any remaining assets after discharge of the board's liabilities would he distributed to registered potato producers. Many of the technical provisions of this part of the Bill follow closely those for the milk boards. The principal differences derive from the fact that the Potato Marketing Board is not a trading body.
It may be convenient if at this stage I deal also with the termination of the Government's guarantee, which is in Part IV. The intention of abolishing the guarantee was first announced in 1988, a decision already accepted by the industry and not, so far as I am aware, in any way contentious. In accordance with the Agriculture Act 1957, Ministers set a guaranteed price per tonne for potatoes grown for sale for human consumption for each coming season. When prices fall below that level the PMB may intervene in the market. Under a financial agreement with the ministry, intervention may not exceed 500,000 tonnes. The PMB would be responsible for meeting the full cost of the first 450,000 tonnes of intervention purchases, with the Government meeting the cost of the final 50,000 tonnes. Should the PMB's reserves become exhausted, however, the Government would be responsible for meeting the full cost of support buying. The board's joint consultative committee, under an independent chairman, with a membership representing the whole of the industry and consumers, recommends to the Minister the annual target area which the board must aim to have planted by registered producers in order to meet market needs.
Part IV terminates the guarantee by removing "potatoes" from the list of products to which the Agriculture Act 1957 applies. The Minister will then have no further locus in determining the target area to be planted each year. Clause 50 therefore vests setting

803
the target area with the JCC, and establishes an arbitration procedure should either side object to the target area or the quotas established under it.
The guarantee in Northern Ireland would be terminated by a consequential Order in Council. The potato marketing scheme does not extend to Northern Ireland, so Part II has no relevance to the Province.
I shall conclude my remarks on potatoes by reiterating that the powers in respect of the potato marketing scheme are enabling only, so that enactment of this Bill will make no difference to the current arrangements for the growing and marketing of potatoes in Great Britain.
I turn now to Part III. Twelve months ago the Prime Minister called together leading figures from all sections of the food industries to find out what needed to be done to help increase the market share for British goods. The conclusion was that farmers needed to work closely with one another to develop profession-ally run marketing enterprises large enough to guarantee volume, consistency and reliability of service to meet the needs of their customers. Others in the food chain such as manufacturers, retailers and caterers also needed to play their part in helping suppliers to understand and meet their specifications.
At the seminar the Government announced two important initiatives to help get things working on the right lines; but good marketing opportunities are still being missed simply because there is a general lack of understanding about the benefits that can be available to all sectors through greater collaboration. It would be wrong of me to paint too pessimistic a picture because we have fine examples of close working partnerships from the farmer to the retailer, but we need more.
In April this year we introduced the group marketing grant to encourage the development of sizeable, professionally managed groups with a real commercial edge. The scheme falls into two phases, the first of which is a feasibility study. The object of this is to get a prospective enterprise to examine its existing business, think carefully about where its future market opportunities lie, and work out a plan on how it can gear itself up to meet that demand. The second phase of the scheme enables grant to be paid towards the legal costs of setting up or modifying business structures, the salary of key staff such as a manager, the costs of training directors or key staff, and the expenses of outside directors to help inject commercial expertise.
Separate powers are currently being relied upon for the operation of the scheme in England and Wales, and in Scotland. These powers are less than ideal because only the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the power to act in Wales. They are also limited and restrictive in a number of other important respects. They enable us only to pay grant to groups engaged mainly in the marketing of primary agricultural and horticultural produce. This not only affects our ability to help those engaged in processing as well as our ability to promote greater collaboration between the primary production and processing sectors. The powers are also deficient in a number of
804
other respects, including the lack of provision for the creation of offences, penalties, or formal grant recovery procedures.
The new powers will remedy the situation and enable us to provide a firmer legal framework for any future scheme. The provisions have been drawn widely to enable the Government to help tackle perceived weaknesses or encourage particular strengths in relation to any type of marketing activity in the food supply chain.
Clause 44 enables Ministers to establish a scheme covering Great Britain for the making of grants for the marketing of the produce of agriculture, fish farming and anything derived from such produce. Ministers may by order extend the range of produce eligible for aid under a scheme.
The clause specifies the various matters a scheme may include, such as the approval of proposals, the conditions subject to which grants may be made, the manner and timing of payments and different provision for different cases or areas. It makes provision for a Minister to delegate functions and also empowers Ministers to amend by regulation the constitution or powers of a statutory body upon which a scheme confers any functions.
Finally, the clause provides for the recovery of grants where any scheme condition is not met or the applicant has given false or misleading information. But Ministers must give at least 30 days' written notice of the reasons before taking action.
Clauses 45 and 46 make it an offence for any person knowingly or recklessly to make a false or misleading statement for the purpose of obtaining grant for himself or another and deal with penalties and related matters. The provisions are an important part of the Government's proposals to encourage a more market-orientated agriculture and food industry and I urge your Lordships to give them your full support.
I can be brief in dealing with the final part of the Bill, the more so as I have already described the provisions concerning the potato guarantee and quota areas. Clause 48 terminates the arrangements under which the guaranteed price for wool is fixed annually by Ministers. The wool guarantee has served the industry well since 1950 by stabilising producer returns from wool but has now outlived its usefulness. The elaborate structure of agricultural guarantees built up in the 1940s and 1950s has largely become redundant in the face of Community support measures under the common agricultural policy. Sheep and wool producers now receive very substantial support through the ewe premium and hill livestock compensatory allowances. The wool indu-stry is ready to accept financial responsibility for its own affairs and to face even more directly the challenge of the market.
Termination of the guarantee will not otherwise affect the marketing arrangements for clip wool under the British wool marketing scheme. The scheme has been administered successfully by the British Wool Marketing Board. It continues to operate in the interests of both producers and consumers of wool. The board will have the opportunity to build further on its achievements once the guarantee is ended.

805
Clause 48 also provides the board with a sensible and workable timetable of two years for the sale of wool which remains from the 1992 and previous clips. This will assure a clear and precise end-date for Exchequer liability without disruption to traditional marketing patterns.
The requirement to hold an annual review of agriculture is ended by virtue of Clause 55 and Schedule 5. This requirement was laid down in the Agriculture Act 1947. Its purpose was to enable the Government, through consultation with the industry, to formulate national price support policies. With United Kingdom accession to the European Community, decisions on levels of price support and other policy issues are now taken primarily in the context of the annual EC price fixing settlement. This removes the need for a statutory annual review and the Bill accordingly repeals the relevant part of the 1947 Act.
Finally, Clause 51 would amend certain provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. The Government are aware that there is a strong desire in many parts of the industry that a means should be found of securing the continued funding and operation of those functions of the milk marketing boards, such as research and development, which might not be continued by commercially orientated successor bodies. The National Farmers' Union has advocated the establishment of a development council with this end in view. The Bill envisages also that a development council might be set up to take over the non-regulatory functions of the Potato Marketing Board. Ministers would need to receive a formal approach from representative organisations at the appropriate time before reaching a decision. The Agriculture Bill would prepare the ground by making it easier for any agricultural development council to operate a statutory levy. It would enable a levy to be collected via intermediaries such as a first-hand purchaser. I should make clear from the outset, however, that this measure is conceived in line with the Government's aim of enabling the industry to do what is best for its own future. Any development council which is set up will have to be funded by the industry itself and not from public funds.
I trust that I have given sufficient explanation of the content of the Bill and of the policies which underlie it. The changes which it would bring about are intended to strengthen the industries to which they relate, with a common theme of enabling them to respond more directly to the needs of the market and hence the consumer. In the case of milk the changes proposed are of a far-reaching and historic nature. I am glad to say that they have the support of the milk marketing boards and the National Farmers' Union, and I commend them and the other elements of the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Howe.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the Bill so clearly. Like him, I should also declare an interest as a director and shareholder in a farming company which itself is a registered milk producer.
As the noble Earl said, this is the most important Agriculture Bill for a very long time. It brings to an end the marketing schemes which have served the producer, the consumer and the trade well for nearly 60 years. My view and that of my party is that these schemes are being ended for reasons of ideology rather than perceived need or Community compulsion. We know that the present legal status of the milk marketing boards has been accepted by the European Commission since 1978. I can well remember that in the early 1970s there was much assertion that the marketing boards were not allowed under EC rules and were anathema to EC doctrine. That argument was put to rest in the late 1970s. The legal status of the marketing boards was accepted and could not be challenged however much it clashed with the normal competition rules in the Community. The Commission saw the advantage to producers when they were facing an increasing concentration of buying power on the other side of the farm gate, a point to which I shall return later in my speech.
It is the Government's decision to wind up the milk marketing boards which has forced them to produce their proposals for successor bodies and to open up those proposals to EC competition scrutiny. I should make it clear at the outset that if my party had won the general election we would not have sought to wind up the marketing boards. We would have adapted them to suit the changing nature of the market for milk, which was well described by the Minister, but we recognise the valuable role that the marketing boards have played in securing a profitable enterprise for the dairy farmer while ensuring that we have the highest quality of milk in Europe. We feel that the proposals add further unnecessary uncertainty to a farming industry which is already in a desperately uncertain situation.
In fact, we would argue that preserving the marketing boards would be a good example of subsidiarity in practice. If we can satisfy the Commission regarding the legal status of the boards and ensure transparency in the way in which they sell their milk to the dairy companies, it should be a matter for the national governments to decide the marketing system which best suits British conditions. The Government have taken the view that the marketing boards are not the right way to do this. Curiously, the Commission does not propose to look at the reform plans of the Scottish boards and the Northern Ireland board, on the basis of subsidiarity. It is concerned about the England and Wales board because it controls more than 10 per cent. of the Community's milk covered by the scheme but believes that the others are small enough to be dealt with on a national basis. So the principle of subsidiarity has already been accepted—in this case by the Commission.

807
However, we now have to deal with the Government's proposals as set out in the Bill, which is, as the Minister said, an enabling measure. The Bill does not attempt to specify the exact type of successor bodies which have to follow the milk marketing boards or the Potato Marketing Board. It places the obligation on the marketing boards—and only the marketing boards—to bring forward proposals for reorganisation schemes and those schemes have to meet the criteria laid down in the Bill. When these schemes are in draft, is it the Government's intention to seek wider consultation throughout the industry—with the NFU and all the other interested bodies —or is it to be left just for the Government to decide without further consultation?
As I read the Bill, it appears that there is no intention to bring the reorganisation schemes, when agreed by government, back to Parliament for approval. Furthermore, there is no intention to seek the views of producers by means of a poll, although this is required in the case of the Potato Marketing Board. Since the eventual reorganisation schemes will have a profound effect on dairy farmers, consumers and the trade, can the Minister say why they are not being presented to Parliament for approval? Why have the Government not required the reorganisation schemes for the milk marketing boards to include provisions for a producer poll, as is set out for the Potato Marketing Board in Clause 36 of the Bill, to ascertain the level of support for the proposed successor bodies to the milk marketing boards and to ascertain producer views of the reorganisation schemes?
Dairy farmers have been led to believe that their views would be sought. As the Minister said when introducing the Bill, it is up to the industry to define its needs. In a press statement on 31st July 1990, the Milk Marketing Board said:
"The Board would only consider recommending becoming a co-operative if it received specific and satisfactory assurances. Then and only then would producers be asked to vote on it and decide".
At a press conference in March 1991 the Milk Marketing Board emphasised several times that there would be no change in the existing scheme until producers had voted favourably in a referendum and an Act of Parliament had been passed. Why has there been a change of view? Why, as dairy farmers, are we not to be asked our views through a producer poll, which is a central feature of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 and the earlier Act of 1933?
We may well wish to seek to amend the Bill both to allow for parliamentary approval for the proposed reorganisation schemes and to allow for a poll of producers. If the Government resist such proposals, the whole of the dairy industry will be asked, to coin a phrase, to buy "a cow in a poke". I am not at all sure that dairy farmers, the trade, consumers and Members of this House and another place would be happy to leave the whole thing to a cosy stitch-up between the Government and the marketing boards.
Although the exact nature of the successor bodies to the marketing boards is not specified in the Bill, we all know, as the Minister said, that the marketing
808
boards have produced their outline proposals—and they differ considerably. The Minister said that when he replies to the debate he will express some of the Government's views on the various proposals. I appreciate that he has to be careful and that he should not attempt to prejudge the proposals but he should be prepared to give the House some general indication of the Government's thinking. Are the Government concerned, for example, by the proposal of the MMB of England and Wales for a single co-operative as a successor body? The dairy trade has expressed considerable concern about the proposal, with much talk of "a voluntary monopoly". As a matter of semantics, I find the phrase "a voluntary monopoly" a little hard to understand. We know that "voluntary" means acting by choice or freely given assent and that "monopoly" means the sole power or privilege in dealing with anything; the exclusive command of possession. Since as milk producers we will be able to sell our milk where and to whom we like once the marketing schemes have ended and as it is extremely unlikely that a single co-operative will have exclusive control of milk supply as the milk boards have now, I quite fail to see how a voluntary monopoly could be said to operate.
Will the Minister confirm that a single co-operative or indeed a number of co-operatives set up under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts and the Companies Act will be exempt from the restrictive trade practices legislation? Clause 33 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 specifically exempts industrial and provident societies and companies with characteristics of a co-operative so long as 90 per cent. of the shares are held by persons who are occupying land for agriculture.
Clause 3(4) (e) attempts to deal with the competition point. How do the Government propose to satisfy themselves about that requirement? For example, will confidential guidance be sought from the Office of Fair Trading or do we have to wait to see what happens? The Minister was unclear. He explained the department's responsibility in the matter, but the producers are interested to know whether the department will just wash its hands and wait to see what happens about competition or, as I said, will receive some confidential guidance.
There has been some criticism of the proposal that the successor body to the MMB should receive all the board's assets, with the important exception of the Dairy Crest assets. I cannot see why there should be that objection unless those who object to the transfer of assets want to ensure that the successor body is powerless. In that respect, I cannot help noticing that 79 per cent. of the UK market for dairy products is in the hands of the multiple retailers, and that four of the largest multiples command no less than 75 per cent. of that market.
There are a number of important points with which we shall have to deal in later stages of the Bill and which I shall not take time over at the moment, but merely mention. There is the question to which I do not believe the Minister referred of the administration and management of the milk quota scheme. At the moment, every litre of milk produced in the UK is on

809
the marketing board computer. As a result, the scheme is extremely easy to administer. With the ending of the marketing boards' exclusive right to purchase milk, presumably every first-hand buyer, producer/retailer and producer/processor will have to be registered and report every producer's milk production to some central agency, either the intervention board or a department of the Ministry. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that point and say whether that will have any effect on the statement contained in the Bill's Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that that will have no effect on government finances or public service manpower.
We welcome the idea of a development council for milk to fund such industry-wide matters as research and development, generic promotion, the proposed animal data centre and related matters. Will the Government welcome proposals by the industry for a milk development council so that such a council could be in operation from the new scheme's vesting day? From my experience over some 30 years of attempting to set up a number of agricultural development councils, I know that that takes a long time. A letter from the Minister, Mr. Gummer, to Mr. Naish the president of the NFU states:
"We have discussed whether a development council for the dairy industry established under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 might provide a suitable vehicle. This is a matter on which it is primarily for the industry to take the initiative by making its case at the appropriate time".
Can the Minister define what is the appropriate time?
I have referred to the important work of the animal data centre. I hope that the recent announcement by the MMB about the stand-alone financing of the national milk records will not affect the very good relationship that exists between the animal data centre and the national milk records, which must of course work closely together if the ADC is to be a success. There is also the work done by the National Dairy Council in consumer promotion, education and representing the whole industry. I imagine that those are the types of thing that the Government will expect the new —if there is one—milk council to take on board. As someone who has been involved for years in a number of attempts to get development councils off the ground, I have to say how the Government's thinking on that matter has changed. We were told only a few years ago that they were completely out of the question; that they were anathema; and that they did not suit the Government's free market ideology. We now see that there has been a change of heart. We only wish that their conversion had extended also to their views on marketing boards.
There is another important point about dairy farming which should be addressed and upon which the Minister touched; that is, the considerable effect there may be on the rural economy, especially in isolated areas, if the present milk marketing system is abolished. Over the years, by its system of pooling price and haulage costs, the marketing boards have performed an enormously valuable service by ensuring that small dairy farmers in isolated areas away from the big conurbations had a viable business with a monthly milk check. Is it significant that in its criteria the Bill makes no mention of the social effect
810
of reorganisation schemes? I understand that in the draft proposals there is already talk of a collection every other day or even every third day from small farms, and a discount on haulage costs for big farms. Milk collection on alternate days or every third day will mean expenditure by small farmers on extra milk tanks. Has that factor been taken into account? There are many other important matters regarding the future of milk marketing. They will certainly be fully explored at later stages of the Bill.
I turn to the important provisions regarding the Potato Marketing Board. The first point I wish to make relates to parliamentary procedure. Clause 22 refers to the application of Clauses 23 to 43 to potato marketing. Clause 42 relates to consequential amendments. If we then turn to Clause 53 we find that it is all about orders and regulations. It provides that all orders and regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is the usual attempt made by all departments in most Bills to give themselves a quiet life. We do not intend to let them get away with it. We shall seek to make the revocation of the potato marketing scheme subject to the affirmative not the negative resolution in both Houses
The ostensible original reason for seeking the enabling power to wind up the PMB was the possibility of the European Commission proposing a potato regime for the Community which would not allow the PMB to operate. Once again, the principle of subsidiarity should apply. If the majority of producers on a poll, as is required in Clause 36, wants a potato marketing scheme, if the scheme can satisfy the normal competition rules, and there is transparency in its activities, why on earth do the British Government not argue the case for subsidiarity in that that is a matter best dealt with at national level?
Since, as I have said, the original reason given for seeking the enabling powers to revoke the potato marketing scheme and to wind up the PMB was the possibility of EC action, I fail to understand why that is not mentioned in the Bill. The Minister said that it was one consideration that might be taken into account. We may have to try to stiffen the Government's resolution on this matter by relating the revocation of the potato marketing scheme specifically to action by the EC. We shall need a great deal of clarification of the circumstances under which Ministers propose to exercise their enabling powers. I understand from the PMB that in formal discussions with Commission officials and with its counterparts in the main potato producing countries, it understands that there will be no strong objection to the continuation of essential elements of our scheme within our own country. I also understand that France may argue for retention of its national structures within an EC regime.
I turn now to other matters. We welcome the proposals contained in Part III relating to marketing grants. Although the Minister has already given some indication, it would be helpful when he replies if he would give the House some idea of the Government's thinking on that matter: what plans they have for future marketing grants and how they would like to

811
see the grant scheme developed. Perhaps he will also tell us the order of magnitude of the expenditure foreseen for those grants.
The ending of the wool guarantee is a matter of some regret. We shall want to explore the rationale for that decision at later stages of the Bill. As the Minister said, when we look at Clause 55 and Schedule 1 we see that they seek to repeal what remains of Section 1 of the Agriculture Act 1947. That marks the end of an era in our post-war farming history. This is not the place to conduct a post mortem, but it is significant when a government repeal a requirement to promote a stable and efficient agricultural industry, to secure the proper remuneration for farmers and farm workers, and an adequate return on capital.
We all understand that the days of the annual price review are long past. Perhaps I may digress for a moment with an anecdote about the days of the price review which sums up, for me at any rate, what used to happen. Noble Lords may remember that the price review was something of a ritual: the Minister announced the determination to Parliament and then there was a series of meetings. On one particular day when there had been a price review, I happened to be in the farmers' club when a member of the NFU negotiating team came in. I said that I thought that it was a pretty good result. He said, "Yes, but there was nothing on pigs until we got to Downing Street". That sums up the whole story of the price review; the power that was exercised in those days has long gone.
Under this heading, we shall seek assurances from the Government regarding the collection of statistics to the same standard as at present and that the Government will continue to consult the various bodies in the industry regarding the forecasts that are made. Since the Government, I understand, have already given an assurance that they intend to publish the information currently contained in the annual Agriculture in the UK reports, we could ask why there is a need to remove the statutory obligation to publish it.
To conclude, we shall, of course, give the Bill a Second Reading; but that does not mean that on this side of the House we support the ending of marketing schemes which have served the farmer and the consumer well. We do not agree with introducing further uncertainty into an already desperately uncertain farming situation. We are convinced that the Bill has much more to do with ideology than a rational consideration of policy.
We must hope that in future years farmers and others do not look back on the Bill as yet another factor in the inexorable decline in the fortunes of farming that has taken place in the past 13 years. We shall do our best to amend and improve the Bill, as it proceeds, so that it leaves this House in better shape than when it entered it.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill so fully to us and explaining the Government's attitude of mind. Many of the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Carter,
812
are similar to what we feel on these Benches, but all of us must agree that one can broadly support the stated objectives of the Bill. The trouble is that there are too many areas where we have points of anxiety and which, no doubt, during the passage of the Bill through this House, we shall have the opportunity to amend.
We should like the Bill to be seen as an opportunity to expand marketing opportunities for agriculture and to give farmers a better chance to compete with the large processors and the supermarkets. If the proposals are to benefit farmers and consumers at the same time, it is vital that the Bill does not simply become a mechanism for allowing supermarkets to use their buying power to cut farm-gate prices even further.
There has been a growing differential over the years between farm-gate and shop prices. Since 1982, the producer price of milk has increased by 45.5 per cent. During that time shop prices have increased by 70 per cent. Over the same period, 1982–92, beef producers received 46 per cent. of the selling price of beef in 1982. That has now fallen to 36 per cent.; so there is obviously something wrong in the marketing system between producer, middleman and the consumer.
Milk, the product of farming activity, is a special kind of commodity. It is the most perishable product produced by agriculture. It requires enormous storage capacity and enormous investment in transport so that it can be delivered to the consumer in a fit state. Therefore, in 1933 when the Milk Marketing Board was first introduced, it was essential that some system be introduced in order to ensure that the product could be delivered fresh to the consumer. The board was a statutory co-operative. The Bill now proposes to create a private co-operative.
We broadly welcome the proposals to form a single producer co-operative. We argue that if the co-operative is to succeed, it is essential that as many farmers as possible join it. One would hope that as many as 90 per cent. of milk producers will join. Membership of the proposed co-operative will, of course, be open to all farmers and it will promise to buy all the milk that members produce. But no farmer will have to join. Each will have his own choice and decision and will be able to leave the co-operative at short notice. Buyers will not be obliged to buy from the co-operative.
In view of those regulations, it is essential that farmers learn the lessons of the 1930s. If they allow themselves to be picked off one by one by initially attractive independent deals, then their incomes will collapse.
If a near market monopoly is created by a single co-op in England and Wales, what are the Government's plans for the regulation of that body, apart from the obvious rules with which the co-operative will have to comply? In other words, it must comply with the same UK and EC laws on compensation as other dairy companies. I wish to know what further regulations the Government propose.
I also wish to know much more clearly than I have heard so far this afternoon what criteria the

813
Government will use to decide whether a scheme is acceptable and to what extent real consultation—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—will be entered into with producers and consumers.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the need for a milk development council. I agree with him that it is essential to establish a milk development council to take care of all those functions previously looked after by the milk marketing boards which are not to be transferred into the new co-operative; for example, research and development and generic promotion. We believe that the milk development council should be funded by a statutory levy on all milk collected at the point of first purchase. It is essential that when the milk marketing boards no longer exist we have the milk development council established. We want that assurance.
On the question of potato marketing, the Bill starts from the basis that the scheme shall be brought to an end if the relevant Minister so certifies. The excuse for the enabling power that has been given is the imminent, or possibly imminent, introduction of an EC regime into potato marketing. However, it is unclear to me why the Government seek powers potentially to end the scheme at a future date. Are the Ministers or the Government already intent on abolishing the Potato Marketing Board, irrespective of what happens in the EC?
What worries us, perhaps more than anything else, is that it appears to be yet a further example of government by regulation. We would seek to restore the powers of Parliament in regard to the scheme, or at the very least to ask the Government to state the circumstances under which they are prepared to exercise their enabling powers. Under present law the potato marketing scheme can be revoked at the instance of Ministers only if each House of Parliament approves the draft order to that effect. I must declare an interest as I am also a farmer. We do not wish to lose that provision. It is essential that we retain the right to have the question referred to both Houses of Parliament and not to have it governed by regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that we want to retain the annual review of agriculture. It seems to me that even if that is not needed for price fixing, agriculture is still the biggest industry in this country and it is right that Parliament should debate the future of the industry at least once a year in the House so that we can be kept up to date with what is happening. I sincerely hope that the Government will not insist on withdrawing the annual review of agriculture. The review is of importance to producers and to the whole country.
The one proposition in the Bill that finds favour with both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and noble Lords on these Benches, is the proposition concerning the grants for marketing. We see this as the basis of a system that would allow for the development of proper marketing co-operatives in this country so that British agriculture can compete with the co-operatives already in existence in France and Denmark. We shall be looking for assurances that these schemes will be
814
properly funded and that the regulations will be constructed in such a way as to be practicable to implement.
MAFF has produced some group marketing grants which have been less than efficient. We sincerely hope that the new grants will be properly planned and regulated. If within the context of the CAP reform it can be demonstrated that the provision of realistic funding for effective co-operative marketing enables us to compete on even terms with our EC neighbours, we can build on that to the benefit of both producers and consumers. However, the Government must put their money in the same place as they put their promises.

GATT
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place.
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the latest developments in the GATT Uruguay Round of trade negotiations.
"As many honourable Members will have heard, the European Commission and the United, States Government announced on Friday that they had reached agreement on the remaining issues separating them in the negotiations. These included key points in the GATT agriculture agreement, and the separate but related trade dispute over Community support for oilseeds production.
"This is excellent news. It opens the way to a full GATT agreement between all 108 parties in the Uruguay Round. Most immediately it removes the threat of an imminent trade war with the United States over oilseeds.
"I should like to congratulate the two Commissioners directly involved, Mr. MacSharry and Mr. Andriessen, as well as the United States negotiators, Mr. Madigan the Agriculture Secretary and Mrs. Hills the United States Trade Representative. I should also pay tribute to my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have done so much to work for this agreement.
"The main features of this agreement were, on agriculture, the cutting of quantities of subsidised exports by 21 per cent.; and on oilseeds, a limit on the area under cultivation. We have still to see all the details, but it would appear that a GATT agriculture agreement on these lines will be broadly consistent with the reforms of the CAP regimes agreed by the Community last summer. The Commission will be preparing a report on compatibility with CAP reform.
"This is in any case just one of the whole package of Uruguay Round agreements. The results should be judged on the balance between all the elements.

815
The Council of Ministers will take a final decision on whether to accept the deal when all the elements are in place.
"Talks will be restarting in Geneva this week so that the other 95 participants in the Uruguay Round can consider what has been agreed. I believe it is possible to complete the negotiations this year and we will be urging all parties to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. Apart from agreeing the necessary changes to the agriculture text tabled by the GATT Director-General, Mr. Dunkel, at the end of last year, there remains a great deal of work on other aspects of the Uruguay Round negotiations. Negotiations on liberalisation of trade in services and tariff reductions have to be completed. Much work had already been done on this and was waiting for a final resolution on agriculture. Final agreement is needed on the establishment of a Multilateral Trade Organisation and a single dispute settlement system covering all the GATT agreements. And legal texts must be finalised for all the agreements—not only agricul-ture, services and tariffs, but also intellectual property and investment, textiles, anti-dumping, subsidies and a whole range of other GATT rules and procedures. This is a formidable agenda and much remains to be done.
"Completion of the negotiations this year would meet the target set by the Munich G7 Economic Summit, and by the Birmingham European Council. It would enable texts to be ready for presentation to the US Congress before the 2nd March deadline under their 'fast-track' approval procedure.
"Let me remind the House what that will mean. It will mean perhaps 200 billion dollars extra yearly output for the world by the end of this decade. It will mean improved opportunities for our exporters. It will mean that we are able to take advantage of increased trade in services. It will mean our inventors and artists have better protection for their intellectual property—it has been estimated that the UK record industry alone loses £1 billion a year through piracy.
"For the developing countries it will mean western markets being more open to their agricultural and textiles products. The gains to them from increased trade could exceed the total western aid budget.
"In short, this is a good deal—for the UK, for the European Community, for the United States, for the developing countries, and for the world. With determination and good will on all sides, I believe that such an agreement can be reached by the end of the year. I hope therefore that the whole House will join me in welcoming the achievement of the Community and the United States".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place by the President of
816
the Board of Trade. I certainly join with the noble Baroness in congratulating the two Commissioners directly involved, Mr. MacSharry and Mr. Andriessen, as well as the United States negotiators on what has been an extremely difficult negotiation.
As the noble Baroness will know, we have consistently supported every effort that can be made towards a conclusion of the Uruguay Round. I will not deviate from that fundamental position on our side. However, a number of points are raised in the Statement about which I should like to ask the noble Baroness some questions.
The Statement says that the GATT agricultural agreement on the lines that have been negotiated will be broadly consistent with the reforms of the CAP regimes that were agreed by the Community last summer. That has been a matter of considerable controversy. Are those agreements consistent or are they inconsistent? We must know the answer to that question. Our agricultural industry has to know whether our farmers will be disadvantaged or advantaged by the agreements that have been arrived at by Mr. MacSharry and Mr. Murdigan.
The second question relates to the statement that "this is a formidable agenda" and that much remains to be done. It is true that much remains to be done, but how is that sentence consistent with the final paragraph of the Statement which says "In short, this is a good deal"? Much remains to be done; it is not yet a deal. If there were a deal, we could then be in a position to state that it was a good deal. It is odd and a bit previous to announce that there is a formidable agenda and that much remains to be done—which is true—and then at a later stage to state "this is a good deal". If the agenda is completed, it will be a good deal. However, I agree with the noble Baroness when she states that much remains to be done.
The third and most important question relates to the attitude of the French Government. We on these Benches understand that there is a domestic problem in France. The farmers in France have demonstrated, in a very vocal and sometimes violent manner, their opposition to any agreement under the Uruguay Round that compromises their position.
There are clear provisions in the Treaty of Rome for weighted majority voting on such an issue as this. If the National Assembly in Paris requires the government to exercise their rights under the Luxembourg compromise (as it was known in 1966 and is known now) can I ask the noble Baroness this. The Luxembourg compromise was only arrived at in early 1966 after an "empty chair" policy by France in late 1965, and allowed, in a manner which is not yet specified, a national veto on any Community measures that were contrary to the vital national interest of any one major member state. If the Luxembourg compromise is to be invoked by the French Government as a result of a parliamentary vote, will the British Government accept the Luxembourg compromise? Did the British Government, in assenting to the Treaty of Rome, also assent to the Luxembourg compromise? If they did, how did they do it and in what form?

817
I understand that the Luxembourg compromise was a minute of a meeting that took place in Luxembourg in early 1966. If that is the situation, did the Government accept that minute? Did the Government put before Parliament the fact that they had accepted that minute? If so, do we also have the right to invoke the Luxembourg compromise when our vital national interests are at stake? If that is not the position, what are the Government proposing to do? Are they proposing to say that they have not accepted the Luxembourg compromise, that they will not accept it, and, therefore, that the weighted majority voting which is described under the Treaty of Rome for these purposes to approve the GATT Uruguay Round, will go through? I should like the noble Baroness to respond in some detail to the points that I have raised.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House fervently support a positive conclusion to the Uruguay Round. What we cannot have is one country standing out on the basis of possible doubtful legality simply because its farmers, who are experiencing a difficult domestic situation, will be disadvantaged. Either the Community works or it does not work.
I shall reserve my congratulations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs until I hear the Government's position.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we on this side of the House heard the Statement with much satisfaction. This is one of the most important issues that unites all parties in Parliament. I also have a number of questions about which I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give some elucidation.
The Statement indicated that the Commission will be preparing a report on compatibility with the CAP reforms which were agreed last summer. If it is shown as a result of the report that there was compatibility beyond any reasonable doubt and that what has been negotiated is entirely in line with what was agreed by all member countries last summer, would that not mean that it would be very difficult for any one country to stand out against the agreement? We shall be relieved to hear the answer to that question.
In spite of the obvious benefits of the agreement, there is very little doubt that it will place a further squeeze on employment in rural areas both in Britain and throughout the Community. Will that issue be taken into account when the final settlement is reached, and will mitigating measures be taken to deal with that aspect of unemployment, which will add to current problems?
I agree that much else remains to be done. There are a number of key issues that are yet to be dealt with which have been deliberately put on ice until the key agricultural issue is decided. What is the future of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement that will affect a large number of countries? There is the question of the trade in services which we were told at one time aroused uncertainty in the minds of third world countries. There is the question of the better protection of intellectual property that is referred to in the Statement. Can those difficult issues be negotiated
818
before 2nd March in order to meet the American deadline? We very much hope that will be the position; but it would be helpful if the noble Baroness can give us some reassurance and also indicate some of the difficulties in the other areas.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Ezra, for their support for the work that has been done in bringing the GATT agreement towards a conclusion. I have been grateful for this support in the past and I am grateful again. I was also grateful for the support I received against retaliatory measures when that was on the agenda earlier in these discussions. That was most helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, draws attention to the fact that the Commission are preparing a report on the compatibility of this agreement with the CAP reforms. May I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that my honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture has welcomed the deal. While we still need to study the details, it would appear to be broadly compatible for those products for which reform was agreed earlier this year. Therefore, it should not impose additional burdens on United Kingdom and Community farmers. In addition, compensation payments to farmers for reduced production are fully protected from cuts. We shall need to wait to see the outcome of the report and the work; and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture will be well involved in those discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the issues of the rural unemployment that this may involve. I am sure again that this is an area where my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be conscious of the need to look at the particular work. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, questioned my reading that it was a good deal because there is so much to be done. It was a good deal to move forward to the point we are now at. We were at a blockage. We were continuing for some time at fingertip distance. We have now managed to join hands together again so that negotiations continue. Progress has been made. I agree wholeheartedly that there is so much to do; but I believe that when it is finished it will not be just a good deal, it will be a brilliant deal.
The French Government was party both to the G7 Agreement and to the Birmingham Summit Agreement and of course the conclusion of the negotiations is important. The European Council of Ministers will have to decide whether to accept a complete, final package at the end of negotiations. We believe that there is a legal base to provide for qualified majority voting for trade policy decisions. We believe that the question of the Luxembourg compromise is something that may arise in due course, but that is not the issue at this stage. The Luxembourg compromise is not a formal part of treaties. It depends on support from member states.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for interrupting with a sedentary comment. I said that that was sad hearing. The

819
Luxembourg compromise must mean something; or we ought to know if it means nothing. It affects our whole approach to membership of the European Community.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may assure my noble friend that it means something; but it depends on the support of the member states. What I am trying to get over is that I do not believe that at the end of the day any one member state will be able to block this deal. I hope that the noble Lord will find that satisfactory.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would my noble friend carry a little further the argument that she has just submitted to the House? Can she say explicitly whether Her Majesty's Government accept that the French Government could veto this agreement? If her answer to that is in the affirmative, then what will Her Majesty's Government do about it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I repeat that we believe that there is a legal base to provide for qualified majority voting for trade policy decisions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to intervene? Does that mean, then, that Her Majesty's Government take the view that the French Government does not have an effective veto?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, at this stage we do not want to go ahead of the problem actually facing us, which is to get towards bringing the agreement to the whole Council of Ministers. Forcing pressure on our partners when we are aiming for an agreement is not helpful. That has been referred to in the past.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness will appreciate that does not get us very much further. This question is one of the most vital importance. Is she aware that on a number of occasions the House has been assured by Ministers sitting opposite that the Luxembourg compromise is still in effect? If that be the case, and if the French Government is entitled to exercise a right of veto, I ask this. First of all, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that in May 1982 when the United Kingdom sought to invoke the Luxembourg compromise that the remaining members of the Community, including France, ignored the United Kingdom's veto?
Will the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that if the occasion arises—and I am not saying that it will—that Her Majesty's Government will also see that this particular right is placed in the balance against the overwhelming advantages of GATT? Will the noble Baroness also give the House an assurance that when the council next meets to discuss this question that it will be unnecessary for the President of the Commission, M. Jacques Delors, to attend because the agenda for the council meeting will have already been prepared by the committee of permanent representatives where the president always has the right of access anyway?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the assurance I can give is that the United Kingdom Government are totally committed to ensuring that the GATT-Uruguay Round deal is achieved. It will therefore bear in mind every possible action in doing this; but I cannot give assurances ahead of negotiations. I am sure that the instance that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raises is well known to my colleagues. Certainly past history and practice will be borne in mind.
It would perhaps be helpful if I confirm to the House that the Luxembourg compromise is still in effect, but it is not entirely certain that this is necessarily relevant in this case. It applies to internal measures and it is not clear that it applies to external trade agreements. I hope that your Lordships will accept at this stage that the aim of the United Kingdom Government is to ensure that these negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion; and as each step in the way is met, that will he our sole aim.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this. The Luxembourg compromise has no legal base. It is therefore in a sense, a meaningless question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is not.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, in a sense it is a meaningless question to ask whether it exists or whether it does not exist. There were two precedents in the 1980s. The one to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred, where the Luxembourg compromise was not upheld, and the other one in 1986 involving Germany when the Luxembourg Compromise was upheld. The practical answer to the question is this. If, when it comes to the point, a sufficient number of member states resile from a position of having supported a proposition so that in the event a qualified majority for that proposition cannot be obtained, the proposition falls.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the support from noble Lords is most welcome. I am grateful, as the House so often is, for the experienced views of my noble friend Lord Cockfield who has so much more knowledge on this issue than I do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Luxembourg compromise is designed to protect vital national interests. The noble Baroness has just told us that her view of the compromise is that it applies only to internal matters. It now appears that we have a new ruling about the Luxembourg compromise. Hitherto it has been deemed to apply to every matter which may or may not affect a vital national interest. Now we are told that it applies only to internal matters. Is that an official ruling or the personal opinion of the noble Baroness?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we seem to be moving towards a discussion on this subject, not a debate. I hope the noble Lord accepts that I am not standing at this Dispatch Box passing personal opinions. I draw attention again to the comment of my noble friend Lord Cockfield that this matter will be

821
considered when the point arises. I believe that to go ahead of the matters under discussion now is not helpful for the future of the negotiations.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I support the statement just made by my noble friend the Minister. I consider that this is a hypothetical question with regard to the Luxembourg compromise. The French Government have not invoked the compromise. We do not know whether they even intended to invoke the compromise, although clearly from an internal political position they may well attempt to make that kind of noise. We all know the difficulties we have in our own countries where there is a difference of opinion. Would it not be helpful to the Government and, more importantly, the negotiations as a whole, for the Government to carry out their duties as President of the Council and get the agreement through as quickly as possible, if necessary by a qualified majority under Article 113 of the Treaty?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles for putting so well what I was trying to say.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I think everyone will agree that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was absolutely correct in congratulat-ing the negotiating parties. However, perhaps my noble friend can assist me. Bearing in mind the critical importance to world trade that a general agreement on tariffs and trade should be obtained as quickly as possible, are Her Majesty's Government considering the negotiating method for obtaining such an agreement in view of the shock that the public have sustained in the knowledge that the negotiations have been going on for over six years?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to reassure my noble friend that all the focus in our Presidency is on reaching a termination of this matter. It must be pointed out that it is the Commission which negotiates, not the United Kingdom Government; but in our Presidency we think that that is the point on which to focus. I agree that in the past it has seemed much more like a general agreement to talk and talk, but I believe we are coming to the end of that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that everybody recognises the vital importance of the Uruguay agreement being turned into a deal which will stick? That is vital from the point of view of ourselves, Europe and the world. The comment upon the Luxembourg compromise is not intended to interfere with that; it is an attempt to anticipate possible difficulties that may arise to prevent it becoming a deal. It is not that yet. It is silly to think that we can ignore the signs from France that certain steps may be taken. I hope that that point of view will not prevail in France, but we must not overlook the possibility.
I have a positive suggestion for the Government to take into account. This may be the correct time to define, as far as we can, the Luxembourg compromise in this sense. At present it is understood that it can be
822
invoked only when it can be established that vital national interests are affected. We should make clear that that ought not to mean vital government interests. There is all the difference in the world between genuine national interests and France invoking it to protect a party or government and where it could not be established in any kind of court that the national interest is affected. If countries can prove that it affects their national interests they ought to be allowed to use the compromise; if not, they ought not to be allowed to use it. I ask my noble friend and her colleagues to keep that point in mind when they are turning this discussion into a deal.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I assure my noble friends and other noble Lords that I understand that the concern is based on the fact that we want to lead these discussions to completion. I am sure that the Government are taking every possible scenario into consideration. We cannot go ahead of the fact that the Council of Ministers will only have to decide whether or not to accept the complete, final package at the end of negotiations. But I would point out that there are other important interests in France. For instance, as it is the second largest exporter of services there must be many internal conversations going on there.

Windsor Castle Fire
4.37 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the fire at Windsor Castle which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The Statement is as follows:
"Shortly before midday on Friday a fire started in or near the private chapel close to the state apartments. It took hold rapidly. The county fire service arrived within eight minutes and built up to 39 fire appliances and more than 200 fire fighters. By late afternoon the fire had been contained in the north east corner of the castle. The fire services continued fighting the fire throughout Friday night and by Saturday morning it had been largely extinguished.
"The fire has severely damaged several of the state rooms in the north east corner of the castle including St George's Hall and the Grand Reception Room. An extremely effective pre-planned salvage operation was carried out to remove pictures, furnishings, carpets and other valuables from threatened rooms.
"I visited the castle on Saturday and saw the extent of the damage. I am sure the house will wish to join me in saying to Her Majesty that we share with her the sadness of the devastation of what is, at one and the same time, her home, a major state building, and a unique asset and attraction of our national heritage.
"I would like to pay tribute to the county fire services, to the Windsor Castle auxiliary fire service and to all those who so quickly and efficiently helped to salvage so much from the burning

823
buildings. In very difficult and dangerous circum-stances they performed with skill, courage and dedication. There was no loss of life and only limited damage to works of art. One picture, one sideboard and an antique carpet appear to have been lost. The fire was contained to one area and the contingency planning was put into effect most successfully. Investigations into the cause of the fire started almost immediately and I will receive a complete report in due course.
"Scaffolding is being erected to stabilise the structure, and temporary roofing will he provided. Surveys will then be carried out to identify what action is needed to restore the buildings, and a full report is expected within a month. Meanwhile the rubble will be carefully sifted by experts from English Heritage and elsewhere working in close co-operation with the Royal household to provide essential information for authentic restoration work. It will then be possible to estimate the scale and cost of the restoration work and to plan for it. Those state apartments that have not been damaged will be opened to the public as soon as possible.
"Windsor Castle is the property of the state, and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that resources are provided to maintain it in a manner commensurate with its status and its role on occasions of state. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that resources will be provided to restore this most precious and well loved part of our national heritage.
"Once preliminary examinations of the circum-stances of the fire have been completed and considered, I will want to decide in consultation with the Royal household what further investigations are necessary.
"Windsor Castle is a world famous symbol of this country. I believe it is our duty to ensure that the damage is repaired as soon as possible."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we on this side of the House join with Ministers and the rest of the House in expressing sadness at the devastation of such a magnificent part of our heritage. We also pay our tribute to the fire fighters and all the rescuers who by their efforts reduced what could have been a very much worse disaster. We await the full report, which, according to the Statement, is expected in a month's time.
Having said that, I must say that I fear the Secretary of State was very quick off the mark with a definitive and almost wholesale statement about the whole dreadful incident. We accept, as he does, that the state is responsible for the fabric of the castle. But such a specific Statement was undoubtedly, we believe, premature.
There are a number of questions, I believe, that need to be asked. First, did the Secretary of State speak to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the huge amount of money and how it would be
824
forthcoming? How is the restoration to be paid for? Who actually owns the pictures, furniture and objects? This is a grey area. Has an assessment been made of what the actual cost will be? It seems impossible that the Secretary of State could have made that assessment so quickly. Will Her Majesty the Queen be making some contribution towards the repairs? Most of the popular papers today seem to think that she should pay something, and 90 per cent. of the 1,600 callers to a London phone-in are against the taxpayer footing the whole bill. This, I am afraid, exposes the Government's dilemma at a time when the question of royalty paying taxation is under public discussion. That was not so some years ago; it is quite a new thing.
The major problem is the confusion between public money—money from the Civil List—and private money, which is money belonging to the Royal family. Windsor Castle has both public and private features. I believe that the Civil List needs to be looked at by an ad hoc Select Committee. The question has been raised several times in the past but I do not believe that anything has been done about it.
English Heritage advises on the repair of the fabric. According to the Statement, its representatives are now sifting through the rubble to see what can be done and what can be saved. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is true that officials from English Heritage had been refused permission to record architectural features and that it is therefore difficult to discover what has in fact been lost. Will the huge amount involved have to come out of the English Heritage budget and the national heritage budget, or will it be new money? That is very important since we are short of money for the heritage and for the arts anyhow.
I hope that arising from this dreadful disaster a thorough examination of fire protection for our heritage, using the most up-to-date technology, will be made with no skimping on manpower, which in any case would not be very great. There has been a sea change in what is expected financially from royalty. The opportunity should be taken to examine the whole question of financing our monarchical system.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too would like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I associate these Benches with the condolences expressed to Her Majesty on the tragedy that has overtaken this national monument which is also her home and in which she spent many years of her youth, not least during the war. I associate myself also with the tribute paid to the county fire service for its very efficient and speedy response to the outbreak.
There are one or two points that I want to draw to the attention of the Minister. Major fires have broken out in recent years in three buildings of historical importance: Uppark, Hampton Court and, now, Windsor Castle. In each case the fire broke out during restoration. In any investigation of the cause of this latest fire we should look carefully at what steps need to be taken, when ancient buildings are being restored, to diminish the likelihood of fire breaking out. Clearly, restoration provides circumstances in which fires are more probable than otherwise.

825
I too would like to know whether, as the noble Baroness said, no proper architectural survey of Windsor Castle took place. The absence of such a survey makes it more difficult to restore the fabric to the condition in which it was. If that is the case, would it not be wise for other buildings of comparable importance to have such surveys put in hand at once so that such evidence would be available in the face of disasters of this nature.
I read in the press that English Heritage experts had been sent to Windsor Castle not only to sift but to advise on restoration. I should be interested to know whether those heritage experts are among the 380 skilled tradesmen who will be declared redundant in the next three years. If so, it would seem rather an unfortunate conjunction of events. I hope that we can have the assurance that English Heritage will now reconsider whether it is wise to get rid of 80 of its skilled craftsmen by February and over 300 craftsmen in the next three years.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords concur in the condolences that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness offered to Her Majesty and join in the tribute paid to the fire fighters and all those who played some part in tackling the fire at Windsor Castle and rescuing the pictures and treasures.
The noble Baroness asked where responsibility lies for funding. The Secretary of State made it very clear at the weekend. Windsor Castle is a state property and has long been recognised as such. The Government have a longstanding responsibility going back to before the great Reform Bill to provide funds for the fabric of the building. The Royal collections and furnishings are the responsibility of Her Majesty the Queen and not the Government. In 1831 Parliament transferred such expenditure to Votes in return for a reduction in the Civil List. That is why Parliament provided the money to repair another Royal residence—Hampton Court—when it was destroyed by fire. It is too early to offer any useful estimate of the cost. However, the Civil List is provided specifically for Her Majesty's household and expenses and not for the repair and maintenance of palaces such as Windsor Castle.
The noble Baroness asked about funding. That will depend partly on the level of requirement but we do not expect the likely amount to be easily absorbable within the department's budget. The Secretary of State will be discussing that matter with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There was confusion about the English Heritage survey, which was discussed in the press. English Heritage was not involved in the rewiring survey. There were no structural changes—only rewiring was involved—and English Heritage accepted that view. However, it was closely involved with the work carried out on the round tower and other structural work that has taken place at the castle. A survey was carried out by the Royal household. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, English Heritage advised on the restoration of Hampton Court and it is advising on Windsor Castle. Its direct labour force did not
826
carry out any work. English Heritage experts are at Windsor; they are the architectural conservation specialists and not the direct labour force.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that until we have the exact cost of refurbishment and so forth it is academic to talk about who will pay? Would it not be better to wait for the report to discover the cost? We can then discuss whether there should be a contribution from Her Majesty; whether the taxpayer should bear the whole expenditure; or whether there should be a national appeal.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right; it is impossible to know at this stage what the costs may be. There are substantial structural costs but luckily, as a result of the building works taking place at Windsor Castle, most of the contents were not in those rooms at the time.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that were Sandringham or Balmoral to suffer such a disaster it would be the responsibility of Her Majesty to find the funds to repair the damage but that that is not so in the case of Windsor Castle? Will he bring that fact to the attention of the editor of what is becoming our leading republican newspaper; that is the Independent?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and hope that the editor of that newspaper takes note. The Department of National Heritage is responsible for Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, Hampton Court Palace, Kensington Palace, the Banqueting House and the Tower of London. Those are the state responsibilities.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the safety of the objects and artefacts which were taken from Windsor Castle? Will they be safe from damage or theft while in transit or in the place where they are deposited? Indeed, are they insured and have all possible steps been taken to ensure that criminals do not have an easy job in obtaining any of them while they are outside Windsor Castle?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, some of the objects were hurriedly evacuated from Windsor Castle at the weekend. The pictures, objects and works of art are now in more secure places. I understand the paintings are insured by the Royal household against damage but not against loss because most are irreplaceable. Luckily, only two objects were lost; namely, a portrait and a sideboard which were too large to move from the rooms during the restoration work.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, in planning the restoration of the rooms which were tragically damaged by fire, will full account be taken of the lessons learnt at Hampton Court where rooms damaged by fire were brilliantly restored?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, absolutely. A substantial sum of money was spent on rewiring and fire prevention at Windsor Castle as a result of the lessons learnt from the fire at Hampton Court, which were pointed out in the report that followed.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as it appears that the Windsor Castle fire and the Hampton Court fire occurred during renovations, is the contractor liable? If it were discovered that the fire occurred as a result of the renovations, surely the contractor, who has some insurance, could make a contribution. One can understand that he could not meet the whole cost.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that the fire at Hampton Court occurred as a result of restoration; it resulted from a burning candle. The noble Baroness may be thinking of a fire at Uppark which was due to some form of restoration. Of course, that is a National Trust house. We do not know the cause of the Windsor Castle fire and it is too early to speculate. The Government do not insure such major buildings, taking the view that that is not worthwhile.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I understand the Minister's comments but I believe that contractors carry insurance for such events.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not know whether the contractor has such insurance; it is pure speculation. We do not know the cause of the fire but if that were found to be the case I am sure that the Royal household would look into it.

Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
4.56 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and its three distinct objectives. The first is the freeing-up of the managed markets. Managed markets were almost certainly essential in the 1930s but they really have no place in the 1990s. The benefits of managed markets are considered to have been almost exclusively enjoyed by the primary producers—that is the farmers—but that is too simple a conclusion to reach. The freeing-up of managed markets will have far-reaching effects on groups of people other than farmers.
The second objective is the issue of grants for the marketing of agricultural, horticultural and other produce. That is fundamentally important if we are ever to get anywhere in attempting to tackle the serious balance of trade deficit in food. The third objective of the amendment concerning the extent of levy-raising powers draws interesting questions as to who is responsible for funding vital research, undertaking consumer education and providing a vital database to assist future policy formulation in the agriculture sector. I presume that there is also the unstated objective to comply with Brussels.
As I have said, I welcome the Bill but I have two concerns. The Bill is almost impossible to understand and that could result in a lack of interest in it in your Lordships' House. That would be a great pity. The Bill
828
is most important and the issues it raises have implications for farmers, the agricultural supply industry, other rural businesses, food processors, wholesalers, retailers and, most important of all, consumers. However, having heard the Minister today I believe that those present in your Lordships' House will have a much clearer idea of what the Bill contains. I congratulate him on his lucidity.
My second concern centres on the fact that since the Bill's publication almost all comment has been about milk and the future shape of the dairy industry. Many of its other provisions are also of great importance and I hope that they will receive serious consideration and not just go by through default. I have alerted the House to the danger that we might think that we are discussing the Milk Marketing Bill. As a result of my specific experience in milk marketing—incidentally, I am the first non-farmer to speak today—I guess that I could be accused of falling into that very trap. I intend majoring on Part I and making brief comments on Parts II, III and IV.
The proposal to remove the statutory powers of the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales, the three boards in Scotland and by extension the Northern Ireland board, is to be welcomed. It is in the interest of everyone to have as free a market in milk as possible—and I emphasise the words "as possible". Increased competition will lead to better value for consumers and increased efficiencies within an industry which has been bedevilled by the stultifying effects of formulae pricing and cost-plus systems for far too long.
I recognise that the Bill establishes a framework for the assessment of a scheme to be put forward as an alternative to the current regime and is not intended to deal with the detail of any such scheme. But it is disappointing that there is such scant reference to the consumer. On a quick run-through of the words contained in Clauses 1 to 21 inclusive (which I estimate to contain approximately 4,000 words) I could see the word "consumer" mentioned only once!
The Bill puts the onus on the milk marketing boards to produce a proposed replacement scheme for the current position. I have to say that I feel that that is somewhat too "hands off" by the Government. Recent history, where more than two years of torturous negotiations between the boards and the dairy trades federations on a new pricing policy came to nothing, does nothing to encourage me to be optimistic that a scheme acceptable to everyone can be achieved in as short a timescale as is envisaged by this Bill. But I was relieved to hear the Minister say that time —I use his word—is not "immutable". I believe that the new scheme has to be acceptable to all the vested interests —not only to the primary producers, the farmers, and to the Government, but also to the dairy trade whose livelihood equally depends on the outcome.
In addition, the retail trade, which relies on a regular supply of high quality fresh milk and dairy products to satisfy the demand from its customers which it has built up and fostered over many years, has a very strong interest in the issue. I would hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance to the

829
House that the Government will be more pro-active in assisting the achievement of the desired objective than the wording—or at least my interpretation of the wording—of this Bill indicates.
I would hope also that there would be early and frequent consultation and discussion with the dairy trade; otherwise, I fear that there will be endless disputes, calls for arbitration and general suspicion and animosity. Believe me, the history of relationships within the milk industry is not all sweetness and light and now that there is a positive move towards improving the market for all parties, particularly the consumer, it is in the interests of all that as much agreement as is possible should be reached before the new system is introduced.
Clause 3(2) (c) requires that practices contained in any scheme put forward take account of the interests of milk purchasers. The Bill does not define the purchasers, and f am left to wonder whether purchasers, for the purpose of this clause, include retailers and consumers as opposed to just the dairy trade. I am aware that that level of detail will be dealt with in Committee, but I make the point only to re-emphasise the fact that there seems to be a lack of recognition of the importance of the consumer in all this. I fear that the Government are mirroring a tendency, too prevalent for too long in this country, to put the needs of the consumer rather low down the list.
Freeing a market, which for so long has been protected to a very large extent, is going to be a painful exercise for many. I wish all parties well in the difficult days ahead. But just because it is likely to be difficult is no reason for not attempting it. More than that, it is no reason for not achieving it.
The benefits to the farmers, and the country as a whole, of the milk marketing scheme—now almost 60 years old—are well known. The certainty of a non-bouncing cheque each month, the amazingly reliable service of collection of even a few gallons of milk, no matter what the weather, the first-class testing facilities and the greatly valued on-farm advice service are all too often taken for granted. But in total they compensate in a large measure for the fact, as has already been pointed out this afternoon, that the milk price to farmers has not been as high as many would have wished. And it is not only the farmers who benefit. The dairy trade sometimes forgets that life has been made a lot less complicated for it by the very operation of the scheme which it loves to hate.
Consumers have also benefited. The daily "pinta" on the doorstep and the supply of calcium-rich products are well regarded. But today's consumers demand more than that and even the greatest supporters of the scheme must admit that it has militated against efficient new product development. It grieves me to see that innovations in the dairy product range on sale in the supermarkets are almost wholly from other countries—thus contributing to the shameful balance of trade deficit in food products. It will be an exceedingly difficult task to achieve the right balance. It will require the patience of Job, I fear. I wish all involved the best of luck; they will need it.
Before I leave Part I of the Bill, I should like to flag up the points that I believe will need to be taken into
830
account in the new circumstances, other than those that I have already mentioned. Very briefly, those are: funding of basic dairy herd research; funding of near-market research; management of quota. The milk marketing boards have done quite the best job in the EC in this area. That skill must not be lost. That point was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but it needs re-emphasis. As regards pensions of former staff and future pensions of current staff, the successor bodies to the boards must not be allowed to plunder the funds. There will be other points to he considered but I am sure that the Minister is well aware of all of them.
I make one further specific point. I am sure that the noble Earl does not need me to flag up the fact that there could be a particular problem in conforming to one aspect of EC legislation once the milk marketing boards are disbanded; namely, the requirement to provide statistical information on production and consumption of milk and dairy products within the UK. Most of that information has been generated by the milk marketing boards and it is essential that the database is maintained not only to conform with EC requirements, I hasten to add, but as a valuable marketing tool.
Turning to Part II, I am pleased to note that the consumers' interests are important as are the interests of:
"those who purchase potatoes otherwise than as consumers".
Again, a managed market is going to be freed-up and I welcome that.
The market for potatoes has developed beyond recognition during the past 12 years or so. I remember the furore which greeted a statement by a Member of your Lordships' House (correction, he was not a Member of this House when he made the statement) to the effect that a certain type of potato was pretty awful. The potato producers had apoplexy. The consumers suddenly realised that there were more than two kinds of potato. During the ensuing years the supermarkets have carried out an excellent education job for the potato. There are many varieties readily available, varieties that are specific for different end uses. I am sure that with the final freeing-up of the market, the potato will become even more of a speciality purchase. That is what should happen.
My hope is that no longer shall we be importing significant numbers of potatoes, that UK growers will ensure that they produce what their customers want and that organisations like McDonald's will not have to import their potatoes from the Netherlands:
"in order to ensure consistency of quality".
The third part of the Bill deals with grants for marketing and I welcome it wholeheartedly, without any caveats. In essence, the much greater flexibility, whereby grants can be made available not only for the primary product—the raw material—but also for the processed product, will greatly encourage groups of producers and processors to redouble their efforts to provide the market with what it actually wants.
The extension of the current scheme to food, at the Minister's discretion, should benefit all the interests I

831
have listed before and really lift the marketing of UK food and agricultural products. I hope that the Minister will be liberal in his discretion!
Finally, I turn to the fourth part of this extensive and complicated Bill. The section of this part which concerns me is the implication for research if agreement on levy collection cannot be reached. I have already made reference to this while speaking about milk. I hope that there is a universal acceptance that we must not skimp on research but I would not go so far as to say that it is imperative that there should be a levy for generic advertising. I remain to be convinced that generic advertising works. More than that, I fear that if it does work, the UK levy payers are supporting the marketing efforts of the importers of products competing with the product produced by the UK levy payers.
The Bill is to be welcomed and I hope that it will receive widespread support in this House and, eventually, in the other place. It is a significant development for the agriculture industry—one of this country's most important industries, but one whose contribution is taken so much for granted. For too long we have been less successful than many other EC countries in agricultural marketing. I feel confident that this Bill could prove to be the stimulus which the industry needs in order to show that not only can we produce the best agricultural produce in this country but we can also market it alongside the best.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, a number of noble Lords expressed surprise on seeing my name on the list of speakers for an Agriculture Bill. I am not a farmer. I am a consumer. I warmly congratulate the Government and the milk marketing boards on recognising the need for change, both for the sake of producers and consumers. Indeed, when I heard my noble friend the Minister articulate some of the defects of certain arrangements, I was not surprised that there had been a growing rumble of complaints against the long life of the milk marketing boards.
I must apologise to the House that a longstanding engagement involving other people requires me to leave before the end of the debate. I shall speak briefly and concentrate mostly on the milk aspects of the Bill.
I strongly agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I recognise that the Bill seeks to improve the interests of both producers and consumers. There has been a long series of constructive complaints by people outside the House in regard to the present situation, which the Government intend to change. I refer specifically to the writings of Linda Whetstone which were published through the Institute of Economic Affairs, and to Richard Pool and Andrew Threipland, who recently published through the Centre for Policy Studies a pamphlet entitled, Set Food Markets Free.
We all recognise the history of the milk marketing boards, but their monolithic—I use the Minister's word—indeed their collectivist nature is certainly no longer optimising the scope of producers or the
832
interests of consumers. I look forward to arrangements being introduced which will serve both purposes.
I am not in any way sufficiently expert to go into the detail of the Bill. But I have one question. I understand that the scheme to be introduced and considered by Ministers, and perhaps by the House, will be required to make arrangements for the disposal of the assets of the present milk marketing boards. I understand that the producers as a whole contributed to the building up of those assets, and that arrangements are being made for shares in a privatised Dairy Crest to be distributed to all producers who contributed to the creation of that enterprise.
It would seem to be unfair that producers who will not, in the future, belong to some newly-formed body, will not receive something back in return for the assets to which they contributed when Dairy Crest is returned, in the form of shares, to all those who contributed to its creation. It is a point which will become important at a later stage of the Bill and I hope that Ministers will pay attention to it.
So far all the speakers except the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, honourably declared interests as farmers. But the Minister referred several times to the interests of consumers and, if I may say so with respect, quite right too. The response of Her Majesty's Opposition was given most engagingly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to whom we listen with respect in this House. He told the House the sad news that had his party won the election he would not have introduced such a Bill. More is the pity that even in opposition he was not able fully to welcome the Bill.
Not surprisingly perhaps, the noble Lord focused on the interests of producers although he made reference here and there to consumers. Without going too far, I suggest that his references to consumers were fairly grudging. I believe that the Bill seeks to serve both producers and consumers and all the stages in between. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that the rest of the Bill is also important, and I hope that before long the Government will end the wool subsidy and introduce some consumer voices into the potato monopoly. But I am glad to support the introduction of the Bill and congratulate both the Government and the milk marketing boards on introducing it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I was among those noble Lords who were surprised to see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on the speaking list. I am pleased that he took a stand and spoke on behalf of consumers, because consumers are an important part of the whole situation.
Like others, I must declare an interest that I too am a farmer. Come Friday I shall have been farming for 65 years. During that time I hate to think how many thousand tonnes of potatoes and millions of gallons of milk I have produced, with the result that I have received great benefit from the two bodies that we are discussing today.
In the early 1930s my father was president of the Scottish Farmers' Union and took a large part in

833
pressing for the Aberdeen and District Board, as it was then—there were three boards in Scotland—and I was interested in what was happening. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, is not in her place. Her late husband was the man who piloted the Bill through Parliament and came to Aberdeen to put his point of view. I met him there at that time.
My father was a milk producer, as was my brother who had just started farming. I did not produce milk until around 1939. During that early period of 1930 my brother was pouring milk down the drain. I moved from a farm in Aberdeenshire to a farm in Kincardine, where I had to drive my predecessor's potatoes into a quarry hole because he could not sell them. At the same time I was going to Glasgow, to Merklands, where they sold the cattle from Canada and Ireland, to buy store cattle. On a bus on the way out, in a poorer part of Glasgow, I saw people queueing to receive the dole. They looked ill-clothed and ill-fed yet my brother was pouring milk down the drain and I was driving potatoes into a quarry hole. I felt that there was something seriously wrong and, quite frankly, that is when I joined the Labour Party.
I do not want to go into the details of the schemes of the MMB. The Minister did that extremely well, supplemented by others including the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—I hope that that is the correct pronunciation; it is a little difficult. The MMB and the PMB had a great effect in those two important areas of agricultural production, particularly in milk. I do not want to deride the Potato Marketing Board, but there is no question but that the milk situation was helped tremendously over the past 60 years or so. It has been a particular boon, as has been emphasised by others, to the small farmer. His milk is collected every day and he receives his regular monthly payment. I hope that the new co-operative will ensure that that continues.
As your Lordships can see, I am in favour of the boards and hope, quite frankly, that some persuasion and will to make changes will help them continue. However, that is not to be, particularly as the Government have no will and there is also the so-called free and flexible market. Perhaps I may quote from a letter from the chairman of the board:
"In recent years, however, the Milk Marketing Scheme has come under ever-increasing tensions and strains".
That is expanded on in the official pamphlet on the subject. There is no question but that a tremendous job has been done in looking into the matter. This morning I was invited to be briefed on the subject. I took up that opportunity. I was very impressed with the detailed way in which the plans for co-operative marketing have been put forward. I was so impressed that within an hour-and-a-half this morning I was converted. The main factor is that the smaller farmers will get fair play especially in collection and payment. That is essential. We do not wish to see small farmers having to give up maybe 10 or 12 cows in areas of Wales and Scotland and the North of England. I have been converted to the fact that the co-operative system may be good after all.
The chairman and staff this morning emphasised the number of co-operatives that they would like.
834
They would like them to deal with 80 per cent. of the farmers, but they are doubtful whether they can achieve that. I see no reason why the scheme should not be a success if that number can be achieved.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that this a most difficult Bill to understand. I could not agree with her more. I read it and wondered why so much was included just to carry out what seemed to me to be the fairly simple operation of changing a statutory body like the Milk Marketing Board into a co-operative. I refer to page 10 of the Bill. It is extraordinary to me that instructions are given to people and that according to Clause 19(1) any document to be served on a person may be served,
"(a) by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address"—
or, bless my soul,—
"sending it by post to him at that address".
It is ridiculous to put such a statement in the Bill telling people how to post a letter. I hope the Minister will see that that kind of thing is cut out of the Bill.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Joseph, I do not need to declare an interest because I am a consumer and neither a farmer nor a producer. I was not in the least surprised to see my noble friend's name on the list of speakers. I thought that he had put down his name in order to tell us that the market is far better at organising these matters than statutory bodies. He did not disappoint me.
I am also delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, whose extended family in Aberdeenshire has a formidable record in agriculture. Perhaps he will not mind my saying that even inside that extended family there is, I believe, controversy and disagreement about the merits of the Bill and the continuation of the milk marketing boards.
Most noble Lords have concentrated on milk. I shall start with that subject, but I hope to say a few words about potatoes and even wool. All those products are vitally important as regards clothing and feeding us. Undoubtedly both north and south of the Border there has been a great deal of controversy inside the industry about the continuation of statutory bodies like the milk marketing boards. What we are experiencing today has come about largely because of a great deal of pressure both from the dairy trade and also from certain people in the farming industry. I have already alluded to certain members of the extended family of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, who have perhaps contributed to that debate.
All the arguments inevitably lead one to believe that in 1992 we live in a different world. We have to look at the changes which are necessary to structures which were set up in the 1930s; even before I was born. The world has moved on; farming has moved on and the power of the consumer has also moved on. That is very important to remember when one looks at how we should allow farming to organise its markets. Earlier on, when we were talking about the GATT negotiations, reference was made to the distortions of the markets throughout the world which have been

835
caused by agricultural politics and the damage that that does not only to the world's trade patterns but also to the interests of customers and consumers.
The Scottish milk marketing area has three milk marketing boards. I am sure that noble Lords will not mind if I say something about the Scottish scene. I also wish to consider what is proposed for England and to ask why there should be a difference. One of the interesting ironies of the current situation—this was mentioned earlier—is that in some parts of the country we are putting milk into processing in order to process goods such as butter and skimmed milk. That is promptly put into intervention. In other parts of the country we are actually depriving creameries of milk that could be turned into cheese, which the market wants. That happens in Scotland and I am sure that it also happens in England and Wales. Nothing could be more daft. Consumers believe that as do the public. Taxpayers would also think so if only they knew how much of their taxes were going into fairly daft policies of that kind.
As regards the Scottish scene, I ask my noble friend to answer this question: when we envisage voluntary co-operatives after the milk marketing boards are wound up, is there to be a decision that there should be three voluntary co-operatives in Scotland reflecting the current three marketing boards, perhaps continuing the barrier that exists in moving milk from where it can only be produced into mountain-making products and preventing it from moving to those areas where it can be made into cheese, for which there is a market? In those circumstances the poor Community taxpayer would not have to take up the storage and intervention bills. I hope my noble friend can answer that question. Will it be left to the milk industry itself to decide on the co-operatives, just as it is in England and Wales?
I believe that there will be a large co-operative for England and Wales. I cannot see that there will be much competition when there is to be only one co-operative for the whole of England. It is inevitable that not all the farmers will join the co-operatives. In Scotland, in the farming pages of the Herald, for weeks now we have had blow-by-blow accounts by its agricultural correspondent, Mr. Ian Morrison, of the battles between the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and Mr. Wiseman of Wiseman Dairies. I believe that he is also president of the Scottish Dairy Trades Federation. That battle has gone on year after year rather than month after month. Mr. Wiseman is going to offer farmers contracts to provide him with milk at a higher price than the pool price which they are currently offered by the milk marketing boards and, presumably, could be offered by the co-operatives.
I try to live in the real world. Many farmers will take up that offer. Therefore, what concerns me is that the co-operatives may be left to pick up the milk produced by farmers away from the central belt. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, addressed that matter. It is a difficulty. I want to see a free market, but that could have certain damaging consequences especially in remote rural areas where the board has been obliged
836
—I believe that is the right word —to pick up the milk no matter how small the quantity or how high the expense of collection.
If we are going to go down the free-market road, we must go down it with our eyes open. The dairy trade, the supermarkets and the Wisemans of this world will dominate. That will not be a bad thing for most farmers because they will be paid reasonable prices directly for their products instead of having to go through the artificial pool market, but I hope also that the whole milk industry will be much more adventurous in selling the product. I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who mentioned the fact that most of the initiatives in milk products have been imported into this country. In the United States one sees terrific variety in the milk products that one can buy, especially in the supermarkets. We shall see a real and extended use of milk in this country only if we have a variety of products and not simply the ordinary pint of plain milk, if I may call it that. We must consider other products. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help me on that point.
I have mentioned the three milk marketing boards in Scotland. My recollection is that, as far as the movement of quota is concerned, the three boards are ring-fenced. One cannot move a quota from the area of one board into the area of another. That is also true of the English Milk Marketing Board. One cannot move a quota from England into Scotland, where we could do with the milk to produce the cheese that the market wants. I wonder what will be done in the new situation. I read the Bill but could not see anything in it about that particular difficulty. Nevertheless, I think that it is a very real difficulty which the Government will have to resolve before setting out down the road of an open market.
Equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we currently operate a very tight quota system in this country—obeying the Community's regulations—and that is entirely because we have the milk marketing boards. Are we to walk down the same road as Italy—which may not be a bad thing from the farmers' point of view—where I understand everybody goes on gaily and blithely ignoring the quotas without seeming to police or bother about them; or are we to be law abiding? I have no doubt that we shall try to obey the quotas, but how are we to do that if the milk marketing boards have been abolished?
I now turn to the Potato Marketing Board for a few minutes and ask a few questions about that. What bothers me when reading that part of the Bill is that I do not at present see clearly what triggers the abolition of the board. Unless my noble friend works quite hard on me, I must say that I have some sympathy with the view that a parliamentary mechanism should be inserted into the Bill so that Parliament has an opportunity to look at the trigger on the day that Ministers decide that it should be operated so that the arguments can be properly directed at that stage.
Potatoes are defined as being under a "light-weight regime" in the Community. For the non-farming community, that means that taxpayers do not pay very much for the potato regime. I am all for

837
light-weight regimes. The more commodities in the Community that have light-weight regimes, the better for the customer, the taxpayer and the Community as a whole. I earnestly hope that we shall not encourage the Community to create some complicated CAP regime for potatoes in order to allow us to abolish the Potato Marketing Board because, along with its abolition, will come the abolition of the acreage controls—perhaps one should now say the "hectarage" controls—which have existed for years with the Potato Marketing Board.
Perhaps I may now mention the subject of wool. In the area of Scotland from which I come sheep are very important and the wool clip is an important part of a farmer's income. I will not need to worry if my noble friend the Minister can help me with this, but I am just a little worried that, in offloading onto the market the rest of this year's clip and the remains of the previous year's clip in the time between now and the abolition of the control, the market will be severely distorted to the detriment of farmers at next year's clip. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me that my fears are groundless.
Having had to decide in a previous existence on the level of the guaranteed price for wool, I recall that it is pretty artificial. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Joseph will tell me that clearly we would be far better off with a free market. Perhaps we would, but I put this question to my noble friend. I gather that we take about 2.5 per cent. of the world's wool market, so if we are to have an open market are our major competitors also to have an open market? Perhaps I should have asked that about potatoes and milk as well. If we are trying to free our market in this country and to allow proper market forces and consumer demand to have full play it is desperately important to ensure that neither elsewhere in the Community nor in the other parts of the world which trade with us in agricultural products are there distortions which would prevent a proper, even playing field for the farmers and producers in this country.
Finally, I very much welcome the marketing developments that are contained in the Bill. Certainly there is one thing that farmers in this country have not done well: they have not taken advantage of co-operative marketing in the same way as has been done on the continent. I understand that in Denmark—or perhaps it is Holland—there are three major co-operative organisations for potatoes. They are absolutely dominant in the market. They are powerful and do a very good job, selling a lot of potatoes into our market. If my noble friend's Bill allows our farmers to move in that kind of direction, good, but I only hope that he can also motivate them to do so because our farmers have been singularly bad at doing so over many years. They need only look across the Channel to see the considerable successes that farmers there have had in forming marketing co-operatives.
In conclusion, I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill. In general terms, but with some reservations, I shall be quite happy to support my noble friend.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on a subject about which, as a farmer—I declare my interest—and as a consumer, I have some knowledge. I have to say that I am deeply uneasy about the Bill and its possible consequences.
Before we write off the statutory powers of the marketing boards of this country, let us remember—we who are farmers—that if it were not for the operations of the marketing boards during the past 50 years many of us would not be farming today. I should say that, if the truth was known, over half of all producers in the agricultural industry are in favour of statutory powers and marketing boards. I shall tell your Lordships the reason why: over the past 10 years the agricultural industry has been knocked about mercilessly by government polices. So farmers are very uneasy and, in some instances, too worried to express their views publicly.
I am old enough, as perhaps, with great respect, are many of your Lordships, to remember those days back in the 1930s when the free market reigned supreme in agriculture in this country. My memory is of farmers hardly being able to scrape a decent living, many of them giving up, and scores of farms lying empty with the land turning to scrub and wilderness. I still farm the farm that my father farmed in 1932. He told me many times that the gross takings of the farm in 1932 were £60—and he had to pay a farm worker out of that. Let us remember what our forefathers did for the industry in 1933. Many farmers from west Wales were keen to set up the Milk Marketing Board. If it were not for their initiative in those dark days of the 1930s, many family farms would have been ruined and many families who farm up to 50 acres in Wales would not be there today.
It was not until 1947 when we had a Labour Government and the late Tom Williams introduced the Agriculture Act that agriculture was turned around and the foundations laid for the highly efficient and productive industry that we have today. It was then that orderly marketing was introduced, offering a lifeline to farmers with regular payments for their produce and a reliable supply for consumers. We have lived happily with the marketing boards, formed then, over the past 40 or 50 years, and I cannot see how the British farmer—or the consumer—will benefit from the changes that are on offer today. Like many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Government did not fight sufficiently in Brussels for the interests of British farming to ensure the retention of these systems.
The Milk Marketing Board may say that it is generally supportive of the Bill, but even the board admits that over the past 60 years it has served the producer, the dairy trade and the consumer extremely well. It has guaranteed, day after day, year in year out, the availability of fresh supplies of milk of the highest quality throughout England and Wales and has made a very significant contribution to the rural economy. The board expresses anxiety that if the Government do not accept its particular replacement scheme —a dairy farmers' co-operative—then farmers and rural communities will be devastated, with the likelihood of

839
the breakdown of universal milk collection and distribution. What the board advocates apparently is that dairy farmers should be free to sell the milk to whomsoever they wish, to belong to whatever co-operative they wish, or to deal direct with buyers. That, to me, looks like a recipe for mayhem and the end to orderly marketing, which I feel is essential if the consumer is to get his milk and the farmer his reward.
Why could not the Commission in Brussels be persuaded to keep the Milk Marketing Board with its statutory powers? I suspect that the answer has more to do with the power of money and big business than with helping either the producer or the consumer. Can the Minister explain to the housewife what will happen to the daily "pinta" delivery, which is very important to many people in the rural areas?
Turning to the British Wool Marketing Board, I have to declare a particular interest as I was an elected member of the board for 21 years, representing my native Wales, and its vice-chairman for 11 of those years. I think I can testify, without undue bias, that in its 40 years of history the board has operated well. The Bill takes away the guaranteed price for wool. The effect, under current circumstances, is that from next year the income derived from wool production will be cut by 50 per cent. The average price paid to farmers at the moment is 117 pence per kilo. The current market price is just 60 pence per kilo. The arithmetic is simple. It means that wool producers in this country will lose £26 million next year. That is not a very good policy to pursue. There are 98,000 wool producers in this country at present, a large proportion of them farming the hills and the less favoured areas, barely making ends meet. The last thing they need is to lose the security of the guaranteed price.
From what I can gather, there is no obligation under Community rules to drop the guaranteed price system. If that is true, why are the Government so keen to penalise the sheep producers of this country? If my memory serves me right, wool is classified as an industrial product and not as an agricultural commodity. Why are the Government keeping the statutory powers of the Wool Marketing Board and doing away with the statutory powers of the Milk Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board? Why do they introduce quotas for some commodities in this country and not for others? There is something radically wrong somewhere.
It is ironic that while we are imposing quota systems in the sheep and milk sectors, we are doing away with the quota system for potatoes. That is against the wishes of the potato producers and shows some inconsistency, to say the least. I should be grateful if the Minister could give an assurance to Pembrokeshire farmers, who grow the best new potatoes in the country, that even though they are far away from large markets they will be able to compete on equal terms with producers in other parts of Europe.
I have just a few questions for the Minister. An article in Farming News last week reported a Mr. Olier, director of the Even dairy co-operative based in France, as saying:
840
"We believe the ending of the statutory monopoly of the Milk Marketing Board has given us a tremendous opportunity to expand business in Britain … We are looking at the quality end of the market".
The article continued:
"The Even co-operative group is one of the largest in Northern France with 2,115 employees, 57 firms and a turnover of £430 million".
If it is moving into the south west of England—I have been told that it is moving into South Wales as well—what will happen to the employees of our milk industry in Britain? There are many questions to be answered here. There will be an increase in unemployment in this country due to those factors. What will happen to the cheese factories if milk from the south of England and South Wales goes to this big firm in France? I am delighted to see the Minister shaking his head.
I should like to refer to the Potato Marketing Board for a few moments. Listening to the Minister, it seems that everything is rosy in the garden. But according to Farming News last week:
"John Gummer received a broadside from the potato industry this week by publishing an Agriculture Bill that would empower him to scrap the Potato Marketing Board. I'm bitterly disappointed. We'll fight this like hell,' was PMB chairman David Sinclair's first reaction to the Bill".
I wonder whether there have been any consultations between the Potato Marketing Board and the Government.
Noble Lords on both sides of the House may not be aware of the marketing system for wool. Fifty per cent. is paid to us three months after we deliver the wool. Farmers have to wait for another 12 months before they receive the other half. That is not a very good marketing system.
I have before me a press release quoted by the Farmers' Union of Wales. It states:
"In an introductory description of hill farming in Wales, the Union says that according to official figures, general net farming income dropped by 25½ per cent. to £7,561 in the year to April 1991. Hill and upland farmers fared much worse however—45 per cent. made a loss on their holdings while 40 per cent. earned up to £10,000".
The union states:
"For 85 per cent. of the LFA farmers to be deriving net incomes of £145 or less a week—56 per cent. below the average industrial wage—is not a sustainable position".
Yet here we have the Government again introducing measures which will reduce farmers' incomes by £26 million. The Bill will go through the House, but British farming is at the crossroads. I make a plea once again that the Minister should reconsider many of his proposals. If reasonable amendments are tabled by noble Lords on all sides of the House, I hope he will heed what is said by experienced and long-toothed farmers. He is a very young man and a very good Minister. I hope that he will listen.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I have also to declare an interest. I am a registered milk producer and a director of a company that is a milk buyer. I have been involved with the milk industry in one way or another for most of my business life. I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the Government on bringing it

841
forward. I congratulate especially the new leadership of the MMB which has responded to marketing needs and had a positive approach to the Bill's proposals.
Many noble Lords have referred to the formation of the MMB, but they did not refer to the fact that at that time the milk supply was greater than the demand. The board was successful in marketing a product of which there was an over-supply. It showed how it could be marketed more effectively, opened up new opportunities for it and structured the industry to cope with the position.
In the late 1970s it was clear to me that the MMB could not adjust to the changing market and demands by consumers in this country and adapt to the changing needs of the European market where we were competing with products from France and Germany in a way that we had never done before. This country was traditionally a manufacturer of commodity products: liquid milk, Cheddar cheese and butter. We structured our business accordingly. With the changes in the EC during the 1980s it became clear that our consumers were to be given the opportunity of having a whole new range of products to which our industry was unable to adapt. The main reason we could not adapt—another point to which noble Lords have not referred—is that we had a joint pricing committee of the MMB and the dairy trade which fixed a range of prices based upon the end use of the product and not on the value of the milk. The result was that it did not matter what was done with the milk, the producer ended up with approximately the same profit. The milk pricing committee ensured that that was the case. There was no incentive to invest in new methods of production and new products and no enthusiasm to see the whole of our market and the European market as offering us an opportunity. For many years, especially during the late 1970s and the early 1980s, there was a preponderance of imported milk products, a point to which many noble Lords have referred.
We now have an opportunity to change that system and to open up the market in a way that has not been seen by the milk industry since 1933. Such a move will obviously make many people nervous. Farmers who have been in business for a long time have become used to a system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, referred, in which they receive a regular cheque. They have not been marketing people. Similarly, the trade itself has not been used to dealing with supply and demand in a free market; it has merely been used to dealing with the MMB scheme. All the main milk buyers were much more adept at dealing with the scheme than trading in milk and looking for new products.
The Bill proposes doing away with the boards' statutory powers and opening up the market. That will have an impact on all levels of the industry. The changes are all for the good, because supply is now much less than demand. We cannot adjust suddenly to the change in demand because the quota system ensures that that cannot happen. It will be some time before the supply and demand of milk in Europe will be in balance. The market may then find a level where there is no need to apply strong quota controls.
842
What changes will the Bill allow to take place? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be a little more explicit as to the criteria he is laying down for successor organisations. The industry has many views on that matter. My noble friend referred to Scotland where a different approach to the organisation of a voluntary board is needed. We must also take into account the fact that any voluntary board should be subject to the same rules and regulations as those imposed upon any other body. Voluntary boards should not have opportunities unavailable to existing companies which are potential milk purchasers. I should be grateful if my noble friend would tell us the Government's plans for ensuring equal opportunities for all milk purchasers when the statutory boards cease to exist.
One of the technical aspects of the Bill is that there will be one price for milk and that will be the price that the producer receives. It will be based on the price that each purchaser pays. The result will be that the industry will need to add value to milk in a way that we have not seen before. We shall probably see multi-range dairies or dairies with a multi-range of products so that they can maximise their return upon their milk. Those freedoms which will be necessary to obtain the full benefit of the market place are made possible by the Bill. The Bill must not restrict the new opportunities which the new market place will create.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, referred to the fact that overseas companies may set up and buy milk in this country. We are now in a European market. That decision has been made. People will have the opportunity to set up over here but we shall have an equal opportunity to set up in other European countries. We must ensure that we can create major milk companies in this country which will be able to compete in Europe. The companies that have the size and strength to be most competitive will be those which will be able to market their products in Europe. That is how our milk producers will be able to command the right price for their products in Europe.
That leads me to my next point—the efficiency of our industry. I was brought up in an industry which saw the buyer as the enemy. When I was young, I was taught to believe that the milk buyer was the enemy. If one reads the history of farming in Cheshire one sees that the buyer was always the enemy. Now we must realise that we have the opportunity of bringing all sides of the industry together and taking a one-industry view which is in the interests of the milk producer, the purchaser, the supplier, the middle man (if there is one), the manufacturer, the marketer and, at the end of the day, the consumer. In order to maximise on that opportunity, as one efficient industry, we must look at efficiency at every level. So there will be rationalisation throughout the industry from milk producers to manufacturers and those who handle the final product. That is an inevitable consequence, not necessarily just of the Bill but of the change in the market place throughout Europe.
Again—and I wish my noble friend to comment on this—nothing should be done in the Bill and more particularly nothing should happen in negotiations that take place between the Minister, the boards and

843
the successor board at a later stage, which prevents that market opportunity. It must not prevent us in Britain from being the most efficient industry in marketing our goods throughout Europe and the world as it becomes more competitive. We must not do anything at any stage to prevent that.
As regards the Potato Marketing Board, I agree with the changes. However, I also agree with my noble friend that at some stage it would be desirable that the matter should come back to this House or another place for confirmation of the changes which the Minister thinks are appropriate. Clearly, circumstances can change and it is right that we should have the opportunity to debate them.
I agree wholeheartedly with the marketing proposals and feel that they are a positive step to help many sectors of British agriculture to market their products more effectively, brand-name them and undertake further development in the European market.
We then come to the proposal for the milk development council. Before I refer to it specifically, I am one of those who have always been against generic advertising. The right people to advertise a product are those who manufacture it, put their name on it and put money behind it. It is the job of the person who produces the product to market it.
I do not necessarily want to see a body set up which takes more money from the farmer and puts it into a generic advertising scheme. It is important that within the successor boards the pricing structure is such that we do not expect the farmer to pay for matters which the manufacturer and the producer ought to be doing. I want the successor boards to keep their costs to an absolute minimum and to do only those things that are necessary for them to take milk from the producer and to give it to a buyer at whatever stage he wants it. There may be opportunities to change the products and for people to buy in milk from the farms and turn it into a whole range of different milk products—high protein, low protein; high fat, low fat—and to conform to the various demands on the industry.
However, I do not believe that there is a need to have a successor board which does all the things that the present boards find it necessary to do: for example, if a farmer wants a breeding programme, he pays for it; if he wants advice, he pays for it. Similarly, if a manufacturing company wants to advertise its products, it pays for that, not someone else. There again, it is important that the successor body should be able to keep costs to a minimum. People who want services should pay for them in a negotiated way, as in any other market.
I repeat that I welcome the Bill. It is something for which I personally have worked and argued for a long time. I am delighted that it has now arrived and that the Government have brought it forward. I wish them every success with it. There will no doubt be a number of issues which we shall debate as the Bill goes through the Committee stage, but I am sure that ultimately it will bring much greater confidence to the agricultural industry, much greater opportunity to our rural economy and it will strengthen many aspects because
844
the pricing structure will be more attuned to the market place. It will have one great asset: it will show to farmers and producers that at the end of the day we must have a customer. There will not be someone in the middle to look after us and protect us, because one day we will be faced with the responsibility of producing a product that someone wants to buy at a price at which it is worthwhile producing. For many years our farmers have been protected from that
Our market, and the world market have now moved on. We were talking about the influence of GATT a few minutes ago and its impact on involvement in markets that some of us have never even dreamt about in the past. It will bring tremendous fresh approaches to everything that we do. We must grasp the opportunities in a positive way and not keep looking back on what we might have done. We must now work together as a massive, wonderful industry with great talent and opportunity and one prime purpose—to make all sectors of that industry dominant in the European market so that at the end of the day there is a little more money in all our pockets.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed the view that the Bill was rooted in political ideology. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Wade and most other speakers in the debate so far, I think that it is rooted in common sense.
The Milk Marketing Board was kind enough to invite me to a presentation, during which it was explained to me how the present system works. Those in the board gave their view of how the future may shape itself. Like most noble Lords who have spoken, they accept that change in the milk scene is inevitable. In any case, as I understand it—and my noble friend the Minister will put me right if I am wrong—the present system is permitted under European Community competition rules only because of a derogation, a let-out clause. That derogation can be revoked at any time, so it could become illegal to operate the system.
Noble Lords have said much about the fact that in a world where the producer needs to be as close as possible to the wants and needs of the consumer, able to assess and respond swiftly to what the consumer wishes to buy, the present milk system works against the whole concept of enterprise. My noble friend Lord Wade illustrated that very well. It works against farmers making their own judgment of the market and adjusting what they produce to it. It becomes difficult for people to produce specialist products, special local products. We have all read of manufacturers who wanted a ready, steady supply of milk in this country and who have had to go elsewhere because they could not rely upon it.
As a result of all this, consumers in the UK and abroad are not getting the choice they might at the price they might for UK dairy products. That is unquestionable. At the same time, as the frontiers come down and raw milk from other European states

845
becomes available daily in the United Kingdom, farmers will increasingly want and need much more flexibility as to what they sell and where they sell it.
Change has to come. I am sure that the Government are right not to impose any new system on dairy farmers but simply to propose, as they do in the Bill, enabling legislation. That legislation prescribes criteria that any new arrangements must meet, including the requirement that account be taken of consumer interests and producer interests.
Clearly, as we examine the Bill in Committee Members will have to pay particular attention to these aspects: whether the criteria for the approval of proposed new arrangements are right; whether the interests of the consumer and fairness to producers are properly catered for; and whether a totally unacceptable outcome of the Bill is precluded.
At this stage, may I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench two questions about milk? First, are the Government satisfied that it is in consumer and producer interests to allow such a large, new marketing organisation as seems likely to emerge in England and Wales? It seems likely that the milk marketing boards will be replaced by one single giant, referred to by Northern Foods and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as a move from a statutory monopoly to a voluntary monopoly. It is, I believe, a rather good description.
My noble friend Lord Joseph mentioned the Milk Marketing Board's assets being transferred to the co-operative and the fact that farmers may well feel coerced into joining because of the possible loss of the benefit those assets represent. Are the Government satisfied that it is right to have that enormous co-operative? Would several smaller co-operatives, in competition one with another, not be more beneficial to consumers and more user friendly for farmers? It is obviously easier for the Milk Marketing Board to pass over its marketing side to one large organisation. But is that right? Is it right simply to wait to see if the new co-operative is taken to court because of competition rules? Should the organisation not be such that it is not taken to court? That is one question.
My other question is: should the Bill not actually require the flotation of Dairy Crest to ensure that this huge co-operative cannot also inherit an interest in processing? The Milk Marketing Board's so-called successor bodies in Scotland will have a far smaller impact on the market, albeit a fairly big impact in the Scottish domestic market. I am not sure that what I ask necessarily applies to those bodies but it seems to me that the new giant in England and Wales simply must not have its processing still within it. Therefore I wonder whether the Bill should not stipulate that Dairy Crest should be floated on the stock market. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says about that as it will affect my attitude to the Bill.
In discussing potatoes, I am on more familiar ground. I used to have a financial interest in growing seed potatoes; however, I no longer have that interest. It has been explained that the proposed arrangements are somewhat different to those for milk. That is to be welcomed because the United Kingdom Potato Marketing Board is a very different animal to the Milk
846
Marketing Board. My noble friend Lord Joseph, who alas has had to leave us, referred to the Potato Marketing Board as a monopoly. It is not and has never been a monopoly purchaser from producers. Farmers can sell their potatoes to whom they like. Further, any change in the potato marketing system will not happen immediately, or necessarily happen at all. However, as noble Lords have commented, there are pressures for change in the world of potato marketing too.
The support system to which potato farmers have contributed through the compulsory levy per hectare of potatoes grown has been much appreciated and still is. It smoothes out the effects of weather conditions year by year on the level of production and consequent price for which potatoes can be sold. That is important because a small excess or a small shortage of potatoes can make an enormous difference to the price. For that reason the Scottish National Farmers' Union is anxious that the system should continue for the time being. I rather think the union would like it to continue forever if that were possible, but it knows that that cannot be the case. I believe my noble friend told us that the potato scheme, like the milk scheme, may not be compatible with European Community rules.
As my noble friend also told us, although potatoes are not part of the CAP, it is possible that in due course the Commission may aspire to introducing a potato regime. I believe my noble friend said he thought that that might occur sooner rather than later. That might make change in our own system not only desirable but unavoidable. All that being the case, the Bill's enabling proposals for potatoes need careful scrutiny by your Lordships, just as careful a scrutiny as that which we give to the milk proposals. If potato farmers find it desirable to set up voluntary co-operative arrangements, it is important that the Bill ensures the right framework for that to make sure that there is fairness to farmers and closeness to consumers. Seed potato growers are important to the economy of Scotland. It is necessary to maintain closeness to customers at home and abroad.
I have two further questions for my noble friend as regards potatoes. The first was put earlier in another way. Under what circumstances do Ministers envisage that they might find it necessary to use the mechanism in the Bill to trigger any change regardless of what Parliament has to say on the matter subsequently? Secondly, should the Commission propose adding a potato regime to the CAP, would the Government, in view of the already enormous cost of the CAP, seek to resist that proposal? I shall listen carefully to my noble friend's replies to those questions as they are important and they are part of the context of the whole Bill. However, I certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
6.16 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, unfortunately I must declare an interest. I use the word "unfortunately" because I grow seed and ware potatoes and at the moment no one wants them. Be that as it may, in general I feel—in common with almost every other

847
speaker—that the Bill is both necessary and right. Having said that, I wish to concentrate on the potato angle. There I feel I am in unison with what the previous speaker has said. This matter raises various questions that we need to tackle carefully.
What will happen as things stand? This is an all important matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, have made the point, as did other noble Lords, that this is an enabling Bill. It proposes an important change to the present system. Clause 22 states that it enables:
"the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly certify by order that it appears to them that it is necessary or expedient that the Potato Marketing Scheme should be brought to an end".
That leaves the matter up to them. Under this Bill at the moment Parliament has no redress. That aspect worries me greatly and I know it worries other noble Lords too. I do not understand why the present system is not effective and reliable. Under the present system it is perfectly possible to wind up the Potato Marketing Board but it is necessary to have the approval of both Houses. I hope that the Government will consider the whys and wherefores of that point and will reflect on the fact that every speaker who has mentioned that point has expressed the same opinion as my own.
I have one other small point to make. One noble Lord said that the Bill perhaps endangered the annual farming review. If that were true, it would be a distressing and serious matter. What are we talking about? We are talking about the largest industry in the country. It affects the country from an environmental point of view and the country depends upon it. I hope that the noble Earl can assure us that there will be an annual review. That would enable us in a general manner to assess what is happening in the CAP.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, being a milk producer and one who believes in expanding producer co-operative marketing, I shall speak mainly about the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board.
I think that we should pass the Bill, provided that it is the intention of the Government to approve the milk board's proposals and provided that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, manages to pacify the potato growers.
I confess to only modified rapture about the milk situation because we are not about to follow a well tried path. The two well tried paths are either a statutory board or a system of vertically integrated co-operatives, which own substantial assets, on the European model. Those paths have protected the producer most successfully, and probably the European boards have done the best job for the consumer. The board here is not quite the same animal and perhaps not quite so successful. At the moment we have a quota situation and a shortage of milk.
I see the proposals as a compromise plan. I regret to state that opinion because the Milk Marketing Board should be congratulated on its untiring efforts for at least four years in putting forward its proposals.
848
However, the plan is a compromise because the new co-operative has to be big enough. It has to be an England and Wales co-operative. If that is the position, it will have to part with Dairy Crest and, with that, vertical integration in the future. I am not entirely happy about that matter.
I do not think that we should keep the board and try to reform it. There are political reasons for that view, the first one being that the European Community has never liked it and a large number of problems have flowed as a result. Most of those problems have already been mentioned.
There are also market reasons that nobody in politics can change in any event. The main market reason is that under the new proposals milk should flow more readily to the markets that want it most. That is a matter of very great importance. It follows that the innovative newcomer to the processing industry would be able to bid successfully for supplies, which at the moment he would have great difficulty in obtaining. It would get rid of the arrangement whereby since 1984 producers have had to compensate the dairy trade for loss of through-put due to quotas. That has been a principal reason why UK farm-gate prices have been lower than those in Europe, which seems to be the most remarkable and unsatisfactory distortion.
I do not think that the new England and Wales co-operatives should be divided, and I am sure that that would be the overwhelming view of producers. Memories of pre-1933 die very hard and producers rightly perceive a need for size.
In order to find the reason for that situation one must look at the UK scene where there are six multiple supermarket chains doing upwards of 70 per cent. of grocery business. (In Germany the first 70 per cent. of grocery business is carried on by over 100 firms.) There are then four main dairies which are obviously territorial. They compete on their fringes but not necessarily everywhere. There are 39,000 producers. The supermarkets will inevitably deal with large organisations and, if they are not big enough here, they will go to the Continent. That is an unfortunate tendency that has been felt in spheres other than the milk industry. Therefore, we should have a large co-operative to match the UK and European scene.
Looking at the turnover figures of the European concerns and thinking about how matters will work out with the Milk Marketing Board turnover figures, if there are three co-operatives instead of one, they would be on the small side and probably more expensive to run than one. One would be splitting it down. In Europe the opposite is going on: amalgamations in the dairy trade are legion.
I do not think that the new co-operative will constitute an uncontrolled monopoly. I should like to remind noble Lords that it starts in the same position as the average producer, except that his tank of milk is larger; but it still has to be marketed before the following morning. That is not a very good start for any monopoly.
If I may return to my state of modified rapture, I should like to talk about another aspect of the situation. MD Foods recently bought Alliance

849
Dairies. Alliance Dairies sell 10 per cent. of UK liquid milk. MD Foods is the trading and manufacturing end of the major Danish milk producers' co-op. It handles no less than 80 per cent. of production right through to manufacture, and it retails in some cases. It is a very large organisation. One might well ask how it gets by the European Commission competition rules. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about similar approaches in the south west of England from France. I do not suppose that UK producers will be offered membership of either of those organisations. It is highly unlikely. It is no worse for the English producer than supplying a UK PLC dairy. However, the situation poses a very significant question. Should our English co-operative be allowed to own dairies because that is what the other co-operatives do?
If the UK disposes of its producer-owned dairy trade assets and Danish producers buy them, we will be losing ground. Frankly, I should like to see the new co-operative retain control of Dairy Crest. I know that it would amount to 25 per cent. of the dairy trade here, but that would be considerably less than the 80 per cent. of the dairy trade held by the company I referred to in Denmark. I know that the DTF will not like these things said at all. I am sorry about that, but it is a matter that the Government should bear in mind because it is a matter about which only the Government can do anything and the Government would really have to do some governing. I should prefer it if there were a period of delay before the shares in Dairy Crest are distributed and gone forever, because I have a great fear that farmers will not hold those shares. It took a long time to put that enterprise together, and when it has gone, it has gone.
I shall not say anything more beyond a few details. I might want to put down a probing amendment to Clause 3(5) regarding distribution of shares. It does not seem clear what will happen. There may also be a possible amendment to ensure that the prospective co-operative will be able to start negotiating conditional contracts prior to its actual formation—an administrative matter over which there is a little doubt. As regards the proposed development council that we have heard about, it is important that we watch costs. It may not be as objective an organisation as the board has been over this. We must be hard-nosed about generic advertising.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I want to concentrate my few remarks on the Bill to the marketing of milk, particularly to the marketing of milk in Scotland. First, I believe that the three existing milk marketing boards in Scotland have served both milk producers and customers extremely well. However, I agree with the Government that the time has come for change, especially in view of our European Community membership. Accordingly, it is right that the present rigid monopoly system of milk marketing boards should be replaced by systems more attuned to the European Community systems.
Having sat on one of the Scottish milk marketing boards for 10 years—that was a long time ago—I believe that there has been considerable merit in
850
having three milk marketing boards in Scotland. A degree of competition among the boards has benefited both producers and consumers by keeping the boards on their toes. Furthermore, with the new systems envisaged I believe it most desirable that Scotland should continue to have three milk marketing organisations as competition, mentioned by my noble friend the Minister, will be a spur to the success of the future organisations. In fact, I venture to suggest, as have other noble Lords, that England and Wales might well benefit by having more than one milk marketing organisation. I am not going to create south of the Border and follow up that line today.
My next point concerns Clause 3 of the Bill, which deals with the mechanism by which the existing milk marketing boards are wound up, and in particular with the transfer of assets under an approved scheme of reorganisation; that is, before the Minister makes an order for dissolution of the milk board. The winding up of the milk boards will lead to a distribution of surplus assets. That is what I, and my noble friend Lord Joseph, have considerable concern about. The mere mention of a distribution of assets so often opens up a minefield.
What exactly are the assets to be distributed? Assets at times are displayed for all to see, yet at other times they seem to get so easily tucked away. To make the question of assets even more complicated, the present Scottish milk boards are by no means similar. At least one board has a commercial enterprise while another board has no commercial adjunct. It is essential that the milk marketing boards should know now precisely what is required in their distribution proposals so that they know what will be acceptable to the Minister concerned. Equally, the Minister must be satisfied that each proposal is fair and reasonable, especially with regard to any distributions so that after the Minister has accepted the proposal it is unlikely that the ensuing scheme will lead to challenge in the courts.
This is especially important in Scotland with its three milk marketing boards, if one distribution scheme has more favourable or less favourable distribution terms than the others it is likely that this will lead to court cases on the grounds of unjustifiable deprivation of property. That in itself would be disastrous for the setting up of any alternative new organisations. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that this important matter will be looked into before the Committee stage. Indeed I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that the Government are already considering amending, where necessary, Clause 3 to take into account the fears that I have raised.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, as I anticipated it would be, because we are embarking on a course of action that could prove disastrous in certain respects for farmers, for producers, and certainly for consumers. As I listened to the speeches from both sides of the House my mind kept recalling the fate of the bakery trade in this country. In some ways we stand at a similar point as the bakery trade itself stood when the millers

851
decided that, big as they were, they needed to become even bigger, and so they acquired bakeries. Having integrated milling and baking they then thought they were able first of all to survive the loss of trade on rounds and to offer bread to retailers at prices that would safeguard themselves having regard to the totality of their operations.
If you read the financial columns these days you will find that bigness has not saved the integrated bakery trade organisations. Indeed, many are now under considerable pressure in takeover bids because of the poorness of their performance which they, in their defence, say is not attributable to their diversity but to the fact that the bakery trade is not what it was. The reason for that, hit upon by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, is that the retail multiple traders in this country wield a power without parallel anywhere else in the world, and it is growing. It is not diminishing. So far as I can see, given the nature of town and country planning regulations, there is nothing to stop its growth, not even the present restrictive trade practices legislation. They dictate to suppliers.
Turning specifically to milk and the future of the milk marketing board in England and Wales, we should first of all direct our attention to that lulu of a subsection at page 3 of the Bill, where the Minister's grounds for determining a scheme are set out in some detail. Under Clause 3(4) (e), regard shall be had to,
"whether the structure of the new arrangements contemplated by the scheme is such as to avoid the possibility of their being challenged in court on competition grounds, with any reasonable likelihood of success, as soon as they come into operation".
I believe that that presages the possibility of legal action but that it also constitutes a washing of hands by the Minister. It would certainly make an all-time classical question for degree students of economics to comment upon in the light of its ambiguity and evasion of responsibility. Other noble Lords have spoken of the possibility of legal action. I believe it is fraught. One of its deficiencies is that,
"challenged in court on competition grounds, with any reasonable likelihood of success"
seems to discount the powers of advocacy of the legal profession. I believe that these days that is quite an assumption. Although we must live with it, I believe that the clause may give rise to trouble. If it appears in the Bill in unamended form litigation is almost certain to follow.
The legal form for milk marketing boards follows the lines that we expected. We on this side are not going to oppose the Bill. My noble friend Lord Carter has already said that we think it misguided and precipitate. Nevertheless, if it represents the wishes of producers, so be it. But we intend to take a close interest in the Bill's provisions during the Committee stage. It cannot be gainsaid that the Bill gives unfettered power of approval of schemes to the Minister. It is for him to say whether a scheme submitted by a marketing board is acceptable or not. But the schemes are supposed to take account of the interests of consumers. One immediately comes up against the following dilemma. Unless, for example, the co-operative in England and Wales handles a large
852
percentage of total supplies it will be unsuccessful. On the other hand, if it has too large a market share how will consumer interest be safeguarded under the Bill?
Schedule 1, paragraph 11(2), allows the new body to be an industrial and provident society under the 1965 Act, or a company under the Companies Act 1985 that has not previously carried on business, or a company which was a subsidiary of the board immediately before the day of the passing of the Bill into law. Three options are set out. It must be said with some certainty that the new body in England and Wales is likely to be a company because the Industrial and Provident Societies Act limitations now make it suitable only for small units or idealists. Co-operatives under that Act cannot pay dividends on capital; there is a limit of £10,000 on shareholdings; and they cannot raise loans. That leads us to believe that we will see the milk marketing boards as co-operative companies.
That raises a question that has not so far been touched upon this evening: why is it necessary in the Bill to give recognition to a subsidiary company as a legal form? Are companies going to be formed in anticipation? Will the Milk Marketing Board, having created the company, be allowed by the Minister to transfer assets to that company? I am bound to say that companies as such are not noted for consumer solicitude. Of course, they will argue that competition in the marketplace protects consumers. (How many times have I heard that?) However, that will hardly be the case if in England and Wales the company co-operative controls more than 50 per cent. of the supplies of milk.
Sometimes non-executive directors are invited to join company boards. That has become very fashionable. Non-executive directors so invited are not likely to be irksome persons beyond, say, asking for an independent performance assessment to check on the company's efficiency. We believe something more positive than that is required in this case.
At present the Milk Marketing Board in England and Wales has 18 members elected regionally, plus three independent members appointed by the Minister. In addition, all marketing boards report annually to Ministers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As has been said, the Milk Marketing Board in England and Wales is a very large undertaking and will certainly be a very large company co-operative. The existence of one member, one vote in a company co-operative should not wholly deceive us into ignoring the fact that at heart it will be a co-operative. Even one member, one vote leaves the remainder of the financial field wide open for the company to pursue policies that it regards as being in the best interests of its shareholders. There is already concern, and it has been expressed this evening, about the use of commercial power over suppliers—even more so in the case of financial power over the assets of the company which we now realise will have cost the co-operative company nothing. Consumers have contributed to the growth of these assets. For many years most milk supplied to consumers was charged at a standard price. After all, orderly marketing was the basis of the Milk Marketing Board's success.

853
Whatever legal form co-operatives take under the Bill, we believe that three directors should be appointed, perhaps from six names submitted by Ministers to the co-operatives, after consultation with representative consumer organisations. Similar pro-visions should be made for the co-operatives that are to merge in Scotland and Northern Ireland. At the Committee stage we will be seeking to give legal effect to that.
The Consumers' Committee of Great Britain was also appointed by Ministers. It performs a useful job. I recall in recent years worthwhile reports on milk and potatoes. The Consumers' Committee of Great Britain which overlooks the operation of marketing boards costs little to maintain. I should like to ask the Minister what is to become of it under the new regimes postulated in the Bill. Are the legal forms of the three milk marketing boards in Scotland likely to differ from those in England and Wales? For example, could each marketing board there opt for a different legal form? That point was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. Is there any prospect of mergers in Scotland before or coincidentally with the new status? The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, is against that concept, believing that three boards have operated well as statutory bodies and will do so equally well on a voluntary basis. My personal experience of merging co-operatives has been salutary. Usually it is only adversity that compels them to merge. It may be worthwhile looking at that aspect of the Scottish scene before we go too far in establishing three separate legal entities.
In Northern Ireland—which I understand is to follow mainland organisations—can we know whether the timetable for the changes is also likely to be in step with the timetable for mainland Britain?
I am glad that on both sides of the House the feeling has been expressed that the proposal for potatoes is premature, even though the Minister has been at pains to point out that these are merely enabling powers. In our view, the proposal gives the green light to the Commission of the EC to proceed with a light regime and exclude the Potato Marketing Board as an operator under it. We believe that the Commission has an inborn dislike of statutory marketing boards as a principle. We recall clearly the battle that the late John Silkin had as Minister of Agriculture to preserve the milk marketing boards in Britain. Do we need a potato regime in any case having managed for so long without one? What has happened to subsidiarity under the United Kingdom presidency? Most proposals from Brussels relating to food still seek to transfer power to the centre. The Commission appears to be wedded to Lenin's doctrine of democratic centralism. The EC system of indirect democracy is alien to the British way of life; indeed, many of our troubles with it stem from that particular fact.
Are the Ministers of Agriculture in the United Kingdom disenchanted with the marketing boards? I felt that some hint of that came through in the Minister's speech today. For example, is the Secretary of State for Scotland in favour of the Bill's proposals for potatoes? We believe that the potato proposals should not be on the statute book ahead of any
854
agreement that may be reached in Brussels about a light regime. In our opinion the current proposals put the Potato Marketing Board in some jeopardy. They put a blight, if that is an appropriate word, over the current operations of the board. It is certainly unhelpful when the future of the board is surrounded by a very high degree of uncertainty. That represents our comments on the Bill. As I said, we shall seek to amend it. We believe that it needs strengthening in a number of respects and that clarification is required in other respects. We are not opposing it. If it sees the light of day, we wish the statutory voluntary co-operatives all possible success. But we are not so sanguine after a lifetime in the co-operative movement to believe that that success is as certain as some claimants maintain both here and elsewhere.
6.50 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been an informed and constructive debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who have welcomed the Bill. I believe that there is a recognition on the part of all speakers that, leaving aside the provisions for the PMB which are purely enabling, the Bill addresses issues of fundamental importance for the dairy sector in particular and for the marketing of agricultural produce generally. I hope that by the time it completes its passage through your Lordships' House, it will have benefited from close scrutiny and that it will, in the process, gain a wide measure of approval. A number of noble Lords have expressed misgivings about certain aspects of the Bill, in particular the proposed ending of the milk marketing schemes, but also the provisions relating to the PMB. I propose to address each area in turn.
I am the first to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the record of the milk marketing boards. Over the years since their inception the boards have many achievements of which they can be proud. They have given producers the security of a guaranteed monthly milk cheque; they organised an efficient milk collection and distribution service at a time when the nation's transport system was nothing like it is now; and they can take a great deal of the credit for the rise in milk hygiene standards which has put British milk at the top of the European league. Change is, however, both necessary and inevitable.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, looked back to the early 1930s and expressed his fears for the future. I certainly do not believe that dairy producers have anything to fear from change. The situation is not as it was before the boards were set up in the 1930s. Producer prices are now underpinned by the mechanisms of the common agricultural policy, including milk quotas. Moreover the boards' proposals would allow for a continuation of strong producer bodies for those, no doubt many, producers who would wish to belong to a collective marketing organisation. My noble friend Lord Wade rightly stressed the need for strong producer bodies.
It is in fact the prospective marketing strength of the single voluntary successor co-operative proposed by the England and Wales board which has attracted

855
the most criticism from milk processors. A number of concerns on this point were also raised by consumer organisations which commented on the proposal. Noble Lords have also expressed their worries, not least my noble friend Lady Carnegy. But a number of the fears expressed rest on the misconception that a single co-operative would not be subject to effective regulation. Let us therefore look at the facts.
First, while it is impossible to predict how many producers would join a successor co-operative for England and Wales, it is sensible to assume that it would be in a dominant position in a substantial part of the market, whether this is defined for these purposes as the EC market or the British market. But a dominant position is not the same thing as a statutory monopoly. The proposed co-operative could not force anyone to join it, nor would it have the power to levy or fine non-members, as the board does.
A dominant position, however, has implications under competition law. The EC Commission has already considered the board's proposal in this light. While it has made known its preference for a multi-co-operative system, it has in effect approved the implementation of the board's proposal for an initial period of two years. Following the initial two-year period, the Commission would again review the effects of the reforms on competition in the British market.
But even during those two years it would also be closely monitoring the activities of the co-operative. Under Article 86 of the treaty a dominant body is prohibited from abusing its position. A dominant body may not, for example, apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with its trading partners so as to place any one of them at a competitive disadvantage. I have no doubt that the Commission would prove just as ready to investigate any allegations of abuse against a co-operative as it has been to challenge the boards over alleged infringements of the regulations relating to them.
If Ministers were to approve the board's proposal, a single co-operative would also be subject to the full rigour of UK competition law, involving scrutiny of its trading practices by the Office of Fair Trading. It has always been the Government's intention that, as soon as the milk marketing schemes were abolished, the same rules should apply to milk trading as those which operate in any other sector. As a logical part of this approach, the present restriction on the powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading to refer the marketing of milk in bulk for investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be removed at the same time as the marketing schemes come to an end. Your Lordships will know that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission may recommend sweeping changes in the structure of an industry if it feels that it is operating against the public interest. For its part any dominant co-operative would know full well that it was in the spotlight and would have every incentive to trade fairly. It would need to work out a system for selling its milk which commanded the confidence of the trade.
856
I said when I opened this debate that I would have more to say about the Government's attitude to the boards' proposals. I must preface my remarks by reminding noble Lords of the duty of a Minister not to prejudge an issue on which he may later be required to reach a formal decision. Bearing in mind the very real powers which the EC and the UK competition authorities have at their disposal to deal with any abuse of a dominant position or other evidence of unfair trading practices, the Government decided that the Bill itself should be drafted so as to enable them to accept the establishment of a single successor co-operative in England and Wales, subject to the obvious proviso that any eventual decision must be based on the details of what is proposed and on the provisions of the Bill, once enacted. It is also germane that the Commission's approval of a single co-operative was based on the full separation and independence of Dairy Crest from a single co-operative, as envisaged in the board's present proposal and on liberal terms of leaving for members of the co-operative.
The position is different in Scotland where all three boards are proposing that the successor co-operative retain control of the respective processing arms. The Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the extent of the concern felt by processors in Scotland about particular aspects of the Scottish boards' proposals. He could accept the principle of a single co-operative structure as proposed by the Scottish boards. He is, however, continuing his discussions with the boards about other aspects of their proposals in the light of the recent public consultation exercise in Scotland.
I shall deal briefly with a number of other implications of the ending of the statutory milk marketing schemes. First, there is the role which the milk marketing boards currently play, as agents of the agriculture departments, in the administration of milk quotas. That is a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The transfer rules and other matters are for separate consideration and EC rules are being renegotiated. However, I can say that it would not be appropriate for a commercially trading co-operative to take over that role.
The Government are therefore considering other ways to ensure the continued effective administration of milk quotas in line with Community regulations and the maintenance of commercial confidentiality where appropriate. That means that it will not be appropriate for any successor body to the board to administer the quota register. One possibility would be for agricultural departments to do this; another would be for the intervention board to do it. I stress however that no decision has been taken. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, stressed the need for a continuing statistical database and I fully agree with her. The provision in the Bill for a development council could well provide the answer to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed the view that the Government wished to abolish the milk marketing boards for ideological reasons while at the same time congratulating the Government for their practical approach towards the principle of development councils. Our approach to the future of the milk

857
marketing boards is governed by equally practical considerations. The schemes are simply outmoded in the condition of a modern consumer market and in a Britain which forms part of a wider single market. They are unduly restrictive of personal and commercial freedom and the economic distortions of which they give rise are becoming increasingly apparent, as I mentioned in my opening remarks; for example, the excessive concentration on low-value products largely for bulk subsidised export. The noble Lord favours more limited change but I put it to him that limited change is not enough. A statutory monopoly is by its nature regulatory and bureaucratic. An attempt to introduce more market signals into the method of selling milk—an initiative known as "new ways"—failed. The boards jealously defended their monopoly against attempts by producers to secede over low fat milk and contract processing because they know that a crack in the edifice makes the existing structure untenable.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, suggested that the abolition of the MMB would not be in the producers' interests. However, in income terms the producers are not at the moment doing particularly well out of the scheme. The returns achieved by the board are well below those in countries with large surpluses such as Germany and Denmark. It would not be in the producers' interests to allow the scheme to collapse in disarray, which could be a real possibility. Most of the industry agrees that induced pricing and the allocation system is on its last legs. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Wade.
There have been an increasing number of challenges from producers, many of whom want the right to act in accordance with normal commercial freedoms. It does not add up to say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, that large numbers of producers may go out of business. We have a shortage of milk in this country and CAP mechanisms are underpinning prices. There is every reason for producers to look to the future with confidence. By giving the boards the opportunity to present reorganisation schemes the Bill opens the way to the creation of successor bodies which will provide the security of collective action for those producers who want it. I agree that it would be utterly wrong to adopt the alternative of selling off the boards' assets and leaving producers to fend for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, also suggested that the abolition of the MMB is a golden opportunity for the French to move in. That is an alarmist view. The point of abolition is for market forces to work through properly into the UK industry. It will enable the UK industry to be more and not less competitive.
My noble friend Lord Wade and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, rightly drew our attention to the inefficiencies of the present system pointing out that not enough milk is going into value added products. I fully agree with that. The abolition of the scheme will enable us to get the best value out of British milk. The danger is that if we do nothing British milk will be exported because of the low price under the scheme and the guaranteed equal access to it for other member states. Once normal commercial
858
arrangements are in place our supplies will be less vulnerable. The import penetration of the product market is already at a high level and the scheme has done nothing to combat that.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, suggested that the abolition of the MMB was not necessarily in the interests of consumers. At present the dairy companies are forced to pay much higher prices for milk for the liquid market than for milk for manufacturing. That is an artificial premium due solely to the existence of the milk marketing scheme, which can he expected to disappear once the schemes go. Many producers sell direct to consumers by operating their own delivery rounds. At present if they do so they must pay a levy to the board of nearly 2.4 pence per pint on sales of whole milk. Next year that levy will be extended to low fat milk if the European Court of Justice decides that low fat milk is within the boards' monopoly. The abolition of the boards and the removal of the levy will remove that disincentive and encourage doorstep sales. Lest there be any fear that product prices might in the process increase, I say merely that competition in the milk products market is already extremely fierce, including competition from imports. That is the best guarantee of fair and realistic prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why there is no provision for the MMB to poll producers to assess the support for submitting a reorganisation scheme. 'The milk marketing boards and the Potato Marketing Board would find themselves in different positions under the provisions of the Bill. Each milk marketing board will be faced with the definite end of its milk marketing scheme. They have already made such preparations for that as they can. In August the boards consulted their producers about the kind of non-statutory successor arrangements which they would like to see introduced. Each board would, therefore, be able to take account of the views expressed in drawing up a reorganisation scheme. However, I wish to point out that the milk marketing boards have their own procedures for consulting producers and they do not wish to have a special power for a formal poll.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, called for consultation on reorganisation schemes. That matter was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. The degree of consultation that will be necessary will depend on the nature of the reorganisation scheme being put forward. The Government have already consulted on the boards' existing proposals. If those are simply resubmitted in the form prescribed by the Bill a full-blown consultation exercise by the Government might be unnecessary. However, I wish to assure the House that the Government are not intending to act in secret. The Bill requires Ministers to be satisfied before approving a reorganisation scheme that the principles—that is to say, the main elements—have been brought to the attention of producers. They will therefore be in the public domain. Ministers also need to be satisfied that any statement of proposed trading practices by a successor body will take account of the interests of purchasers. The Bill also requires them to take account of consumer interests. It is difficult to see how Ministers

859
will establish those matters without undertaking consultations with the usual interests. That follows as a matter of course and it does not need to be laid down in the Bill. It follows from that, however, that if the boards' proposals were fundamentally different from the present ones a further formal round of consultation would be in order. Again, it is unnecessary to provide for that in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed the view that Parliament should decide on eventual schemes. The problem with that approach is that it is not simply a matter of a "yes" or "no" vote. As the procedures in the Bill show, the process of decision-taking is ongoing. Therefore, we need a provision to deal with change and a developing situation. There may well be modifications to the details of the scheme after it is first submitted.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked to what extent the Government would seek the involvement of the DTF in reaching a conclusion on reorganisation schemes. I stress that the Government are in close touch with all sides of the industry. The purpose of the formal consultation exercise was precisely to enable it to state its views. The processors' interests will certainly not be overlooked. The Government believe that some of the processors' present criticisms of the boards' proposals are wide of the mark but it is worth repeating that a single voluntary co-operative would not be an unregulated monopoly.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton suggested that the England and Wales board should set up a vertically integrated co-operative. The retention of Dairy Crest in a single England and Wales co-operative would create a very strong body. The board has had regard to the likely reaction of competition authorities, including the EC Commission, in framing the proposals. The Government have looked to the industry to produce its plans. I have no doubt that it is best placed to judge what is in the producers' interests. The MMB is an elected body. It would be open to the board to propose a structure of several vertically integrated co-ops if it wanted to, but it has judged it best to propose a single England and Wales co-operative. My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton appeared to endorse that choice.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked whether the Bill should not provide specifically for the separation and flotation of Dairy Crest. I believe that the answer is that it should not because the Bill provides a framework for each of the boards to bring forward its own proposals. It would be inconsistent with that to lay down conditions for one of them. Therefore, Clause 3 relates to competitiveness in general. It is deliberately geared to structure since the actions of the successors will be governed by general competition legislation. It is worth noting that the Commission's approval was on the understanding that Dairy Crest would be separated. The board would certainly need to take account of that.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy went on to ask further about Dairy Crest. The Milk Marketing Board would need to include in its reorganisation scheme
860
details of the basis of any allocation of shares in Dairy Crest to producers or any other distribution of assets. Ministers would need to assess those in line with the provisions in the Bill. In determining whether a scheme should be approved, Ministers must have particular regard to whether it makes reasonable provision for the distribution of assets to registered producers. Clearly, the basis for distribution must be practical. Therefore, the Bill specifies what basis for the distribution of assets to registered producers could not be taken to be unreasonable.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to pensions of MMB employees. We recognise the interest that members of the Milk Marketing Board's pension schemes have in their future pension arrangements. The MMB has said that it wishes to maintain its scheme members' expectations. I understand that it intends to provide them with full details of those intentions by way of future arrangements as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed his worries on the social effects of abolishing the milk marketing boards. It is worth reminding ourselves that there is a national shortage of milk—something that I stressed earlier. The existence of milk quotas virtually guarantees a good future for every efficient producer of milk. It may well be that producers in more remote areas will wish to co-operate for the benefit of local consumers. Of course, they will be able to do so free of the current levy.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, asked whether the abolition of the boards poses any threat to this country's unique system of doorstep delivery or to the continued availability of fresh pasteurised milk—
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Earl suggesting that producers on Exmoor or in Carmarthen should set themselves up carrying out doorstep deliveries as their salvation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is for them to decide whether or not they do so. I was merely making a general point.
As regards the doorstep "pinta" the answer is unequivocal. There is no such threat. Both doorstep delivery and the bottling and pasteurisation of milk are matters for the commercial dairy companies and not for the boards. I have no doubt that the companies will continue to be responsive to what the consumer wants and is prepared to pay for.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to competition policy as it relates to the MMBs. We are not proposing to change the Restrictive Trade Practices Act as the exemption in it relates to the relations of the co-operative with its own members. However, a statutory instrument will be used to extend the Fair Trading Act which deals more generally with competition to milk marketing. As I said, that will enable the Director-General of Fair Trading to refer bulk milk marketing arrangements for investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
My noble friend Lord Mackay spoke about the proposals for the Scottish boards. The Government have pursued a voluntary approach to the reform of

861
milk marketing whereby the boards have submitted proposals for change. The Government have not imposed any particular solution on the boards. They are the boards' own proposals.
My noble friend also asked whether there will be three voluntary co-operatives in Scotland and questioned the effect of that on small producers. All three Scottish boards have produced proposals for converting themselves into voluntary co-operatives. Producers will be free to join the co-operatives and sell direct to dairy companies. It will be open to producers in one board area to sign up with any other co-operative. My noble friend Lord Forbes rightly drew attention to that kind of healthy competition. Currently, the Aberdeen board is supplying milk for the liquid market to Wiseman Dairies which is in the Scottish board area. Once again, remote producers could band together to market milk and supply their local market. Indeed, most creameries are in the more remote areas. The boards propose that the co-operatives must take all milk offered to them. At the same time, processors will be competing for that same supply of milk.
My noble friend Lord Forbes said that the three Scottish boards need to know now what will be acceptable to Ministers in terms of distribution of assets. He said that they will certainly need to know before Committee stage. Ministers are well aware of the anxieties of the boards as regards the different proposals for distribution of assets. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland continues his discussions with the boards on a number of aspects of their proposals, including the distribution of assets. Ministers will need to ensure that any reorganisation scheme makes reasonable provision for distribution of assets before approving it.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked why the Bill is so complex in the language used; for example, in Clause 19. The reason for setting out matters in detail is the same here as with other Bills; namely, so that those affected know their exact rights and duties. The reason for specific provisions on the service of documents is that the procedure for the approval of schemes involves a number of provisions with time limits; for example, suggested modifications. A provision showing exactly how documents are to be served puts beyond doubt whether the time limits have or have not been observed.
I turn now to Part II. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why we should have to wind up the PMB. I remind the noble Lord that the Bill contains enabling powers only, should Ministers decide it is necessary or desirable to end the scheme. The point is that the Bill would enable us to wind up the board constructively and provide for a successor to the PMB. We could not do that under the European Communities Act which is the only other route currently available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked why we need to take those powers now. Presently Ministers have no power to revoke the scheme should they need to do so. The Bill merely provides a convenient opportunity to take such powers.
I should say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy that this is not exclusively linked with a possible EC
862
regime. However, the likelihood is that the central elements of the potato marketing scheme would be incompatible with any EC regime. In that situation those powers would allow us to comply with EC requirements but importantly provide that the PMB's assets are passed to a successor body of the PMB for such activities as research and development.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, questioned whether the PMB had been consulted about the Bill. It has been kept informed about the contents of the Bill in so far as it relates to it.
My noble friend Lord Wade suggested that the Government should come back to Parliament. We could undertake to consider that; for example, a triggering order could be made subject to the negative procedure. There is a strong possibility that the abolition of the board will become unavoidable because of an EC potato regime.
I am delighted that so many noble Lords welcome Part III of the Bill and the provisions for marketing grants. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the Government's plans for future marketing grants and the order of magnitude for expenditure. It is not yet possible to say what form a future scheme will take. Consideration will be given to that in the light of the operation of the group marketing grant as it develops; it has, of course, only been running for a few months. A future scheme is not expected to have new implications for public expenditure. Currently around £5.4 million is allocated to the group marketing grant over a three-year period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, expressed the view that the group marketing grant had been less than efficient and that the new scheme needed to be properly regulated and funded. I am concerned about her comments. As I said, the scheme has only been running since April and should the noble Baroness or anyone else have any comments on its operation we shall be happy to look at those in detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about development councils and what might be the appropriate time for the industry to come forward with proposals. Perhaps I can say that as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Government will be favourably disposed to receive any proposals that the industry may choose to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, wanted an assurance that a develop-ment council would indeed be set up. The procedures in the 1947 Act must be followed, but I repeat that the Government are favourably disposed.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked whether, after ending the wool guarantee, the UK wool industry would be able to compete freely with wool produced elsewhere in the world. UK wool represents around 2.5 per cent. of the world production and also competes with a significant volume of imported wool at free auction markets in the United Kingdom. The termination of the wool guarantee will not affect that arrangement.
My noble friend asked also whether the ending of the guarantee would lead to wool being off-loaded on to the market. The Bill provides that wool already collected by the British Wool Marketing Board in 1992 and previous clip years will continue to qualify

863
for the guarantee provided it is sold before 1st May 1995. That will assure the board of a sensible and workable timetable for the sale of the wool without disruption to its traditional marketing patterns. It will also provide a clear and precise end date for its exchequer liability.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, made the point that wool producers are also suffering delay in payments for their wool. Decisions on payment arrangements are a matter for the British Wool Marketing Board, which is an independent statutory body. The Government's decision to end the guarantee was announced in 1988. After the guarantee is ended the prices paid to producers will not be known until after the year end. In recent years the board has taken steps to prepare for post-guarantee conditions. Those include the introduction of a two-stage payment system.
The noble Lord feels also that the wool guarantee should not be ended, given the impact it will have on producer incomes, particularly in the hills. The total return from wool amounts to only around 5 per cent. of the total producer returns. Sheep farmers will continue to receive substantial government support through the new premium and hill livestock compensatory allowance. UK producers currently benefit from over £400 million in direct subsidies from those sources.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed regret that the annual review was coming to an end and asked whether the Government could give an assurance that they will continue to collect and publish statistics. I can assure him that they will do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, felt that we should continue to have an annual debate on agriculture and that therefore the abolition of the annual review was inappropriate. Parliament no longer debates the annual review. However, the EC price proposals and eventual agreements are debated, and it is perfectly in order for any noble Lord to table a general debate on agriculture at any time.
Looking at the Bill as a whole there are many issues which I am sure noble Lords will wish to explore during the Committee and later stages. I trust that I shall be forgiven for not covering every point raised in the debate. It only remains for me once again to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Lead in Ducks and Geese) (England) Order 1992
7.25 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 2nd November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order was made once it became clear to us that there were no other means by which we could ensure that geese and
864
ducks containing extremely high levels of lead on a holding in Billingsley, Bridgnorth, would not be put into the public food supply.
The background is that a private veterinary surgeon was consulted by the farmer of the holding following unexplained illness and death among his flocks of some 78 geese and 300 ducks. The veterinary surgeon sent one of the geese to the Ministry's veterinary investigation centre at Shrewsbury for a diagnosis. A post-mortem revealed that the liver of the goose contained almost 200 parts per million of lead. Noble Lords may find it helpful to know that that compares with the general statutory limit for lead in food of one part per million.
Staff from the state veterinary service visited the farm straightaway and discovered significant numbers of ducks and geese displaying clinical symptoms of lead poisoning. Indeed, lead pellets were actually discovered in the gizzards of some of the birds examined. The farmer concerned confirmed that his land lay in the path of a now defunct clay pigeon shoot. It was clear that affected ducks and geese had become ill as a result of picking up quantities of spent shot while feeding. Further samples taken from among affected birds revealed lead concentrations in liver and kidneys ranging from 100 to almost 400 parts per million.
It was clear to us that affected birds should not be put into the food chain—a view supported by the Department of Health. My officials therefore informed the local environmental health department of Bridgnorth District Council and went back to the farm to see whether the farmer would give his voluntary agreement to withhold affected birds from public supply. During the course of that visit, officials were also able to ascertain from the farmer that he had sold no ducks or geese for some months prior to the current incident. Inspection of the farmer's sales records confirmed that point.
In considering what action to take, the Ministry had three objectives. First and foremost, we were absolutely committed to ensuring that consumers were not exposed to food derived from contaminated birds. Our second objective was to provide advice on the welfare aspects of the case. And thirdly, we wished to do whatever we could to mitigate the effects of any marketing restrictions on the farmer's business.
Officials put it to the farmer that all birds not displaying clinical symptoms should immediately be moved off, and kept away from, the contaminated land. Those could then be considered for release into the food chain once they had spent a month on clean land and provided that they remained healthy during that time. An alternative suggestion was that all the internal organs from such birds should be removed as a pre-requisite for sale, obviating the need to move the birds to clean land. Ministry veterinary staff also told the farmer and his own veterinary surgeon that there was little possibility that birds displaying clinical symptoms of lead poisoning would recover. The advice given was that they should be humanely destroyed on welfare grounds.
I regret to say that the farmer felt unable to accept those options or the advice offered. Moreover, he

865
strongly implied that he intended to market birds from the affected flocks. In those circumstances, we had no option but to introduce statutory measures to ensure that consumers were not put at risk. An order made under Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, banning the movement off the affected holding of ducks and geese, plus any food or feed products made from those birds, was brought into force on 31st October.
I recognise, and am sympathetic to, the serious financial impact which that incident has had on the farmer concerned. We went to considerable lengths to try to mitigate the worst effects. But once the farmer had refused to co-operate in voluntary arrangements to protect consumers, we were left with no alternative but to take statutory action. The department is continuing to keep in close touch with the farmer in order to monitor developments and to provide welfare advice. We also stand ready to consider any management options, both for the short and longer term, and prospects for selling unaffected birds. We shall also be looking to lift our food protection restrictions just as soon as we can safely do so without compromising the safety of consumers. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 2nd November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the order so well. In view of the time we spent on the Agriculture Bill, I propose only to say that I understand that each time this matter arises—there is more than one clay pigeon shoot in the country—the Government will have to bring forward an order. For once that favours the negative resolution procedure to save the time of the House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it depends whether in future incidents the farmer concerned complies voluntarily with the measures currently in force. The point here is that he was not prepared to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Caribbean
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to secure the long-term political and economic future of the Caribbean.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very glad to have this opportunity this evening to introduce an Unstarred Question on the Caribbean. I had the good fortune, when an FCO Minister, to have ministerial responsibility for the Caribbean and, after many visits, came to know something about the region and to have made a number of friends. Since leaving office I have been a vice-president of the West Indian Commission and have maintained my interest.
Perhaps I may say right at the beginning how delighted I am that so many of your Lordships are
866
taking part in this Unstarred Question this evening. We all of us look forward particularly to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner.
This is the first time that the Caribbean has been debated in your Lordships' House, yet it is an area which has strong links with the United Kingdom through the Commonwealth. through its ties of history—for the Caribbean, despite other claims, was known as "the jewel in the crown"—ties of trade and, more recently, the fact that thousands of people from the Caribbean have come to live and work in the United Kingdom. With the English speaking Caribbean we share a common language, a common belief in democracy and the rule of law. There are still five dependent territories in the Caribbean—and after all, we all play cricket!
I want to talk today not only about the English speaking Caribbean, but about the wider area of the Caribbean where great changes are taking place. We should not forget that 62 per cent. of the people of the region speak Spanish; 20 per cent. speak French; 17 per cent. speak English and 1 per cent. speak Dutch. So when I refer to the Caribbean I mean all the islands, as well as Belize, Surinam, Guyana and French Guiana. In the longer term the American definition of the Caribbean basin, which also includes all the central American republics, may be more appropriate.
I believe that the debate comes at the right time. First, there is a real danger that the Caribbean will be marginalised. The ending of the Cold War has meant the disappearance of the strategic pressures on the United States Government to involve themselves in the Caribbean. At the same time, world attention has been focused on the future of Russia and the other republics of the former Soviet Union; of Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia and the Middle East. Thus, because the Caribbean does not make the headlines the danger is that it will be forgotten. Yet the Caribbean has the capacity to produce the unexpected crisis —Grenada, for example.
There is the problem of the very small size of many of the states. Within the English speaking Caribbean there are nine independent countries which have populations considerably less than a million people. There is the instability of Haiti, and who knows what lies in store for Cuba? Those are political concerns. Overhanging all the Caribbean are the obvious dangers of the drug trade. Drug traffickers use the Caribbean islands as staging posts.
The second reason for the timeliness of the debate is the fact that the Caribbean is changing rapidly. Over the region as a whole there has been a spread of democracy, deregulation and trade liberalisation. For example, nobody can visit Puerto Rico without being impressed by its enormous economic growth and prosperity. In my view it compares, in terms of economic success, with the countries of the Pacific rim. Not everyone realises that United Kingdom trade is increasing faster with the Dominican Republic than with anywhere else in the region. We also have to recognise that, however it occurs, change in Cuba will bring about a significant shift in the balance of economic activity within the Caribbean region. It will

867
almost certainly lead to a reassertion of Hispanic identity, thereby marginalising within the Caribbean itself much of the English speaking Caribbean. At the same time, all the countries of the Caribbean will be affected by the two great trading blocks—that is to say, the North American free trade area (soon to be a reality) and the European Community.
The third reason why the debate is timely is that I believe that there is an important message that friends of the English speaking Caribbean need to make. It is this: if the United Kingdom has found it essential to join the European Community and to stay with it, however stony the path may be at times, how much more important is it that the countries of the English speaking Caribbean should move economically and politically closer together and that all of them should move closer together to the wider Caribbean.
I turn first to the English speaking Caribbean because that is the part where we have the closest ties and with which people are most familiar. I touch on four issues. First, the five remaining dependent territories as they are a direct responsibility of the British Government. I believe that although all five territories wish to retain their present status, they seek a more advanced relationship with the British Government who recognise that each country has an elected legislature and Ministers. I therefore welcome the initiatives of the British Government in reviewing their policy towards the dependent territories.
As I understand them, the key to the proposals is the need to support good government. That means increased diplomatic support for governors, support for the police and customs services, as well as the regulation of offshore finance. Those policies must be right as all five territories depend on offshore finance and tourism for their economic prosperity.
The Ministerial board of management, chaired by my honourable friend in another place, Mr Lennox-Boyd, will ensure greater co-operation in Whitehall of all departments and agencies with an interest in the Caribbean, and all will be represented in it. A new secretariat will co-ordinate all official funding. If that leads to better use of what money is available, then so much the better.
There is not time to do justice to all the proposals, but I am concerned that there may well be confusion over the role of governors and the management board; and more importantly, whether the dependent territories will feel that their aspirations of direct dialogue with the British Government are being met. They would like one Minister to be responsible for all the political, aid and trade relations with the dependent territories. It will be helpful if my noble friend can say something on that particular matter. They would like a relationship based on partnership. The dependent territories are not sure that their concerns about their relationship with the European Community will be met, let alone that with their regional neighbours.
Turning now to the independent countries of the English speaking Caribbean, I should like to touch on three issues. The first is the outcome of the West Indian Commission chaired by Sir Shridath Ramphal.
868
The commission was set up in 1990, fundamentally because I believe CARICOM, established in 1973, had been widely criticised even in the Caribbean, for its lack of dynamism. CARICOM was intended to promote economic integration, the more efficient operation of common services and, eventually, closer foreign policy co-ordination among its 13 member states, all members of the Commonwealth.
The West Indian Commission was set up to advance the goals of CARICOM through a process of consultation. Its interim report was published in July 1991, but recently there has been a special meeting held at the end of October to consider it in detail. The report contains about 200 recommendations covering a wide range of measures on economic, political, commercial and social fronts. The main recommendation is the establishment of a CARICOM commission by 1st January 1993, comprising a President and two commissioners with powers comparable to those of the EC Commission. Its main tasks would be to further the process of integration among CARICOM members and to develop relations between CARICOM and the wider community of Caribbean countries.
However, I understand that although the majority of the decisions were welcomed by CARICOM heads of government, the main recommendation to set up a CARICOM commission was not accepted. Instead the heads of government opted for a CARICOM bureau with,
"competence to initiate proposals, update consensus, mobilise action, and secure the implementation of the CARICOM decisions in an informed and expeditious manner".
The communiqué from the fifth Europe/Caribbean conference held some two weeks ago in Curacao said that many delegates were disappointed at this outcome and doubted whether it would prove to be an effective alternative to the proposed commission. This seems to me to be a very serious matter and a most unfortunate outcome to the West Indian Commission's deliberations. I wonder whether there is anything that we in this country can do to help this essential process of integration.
No one today can speak about the Caribbean without saying something about bananas, an issue particularly important to the Windward Islands, Jamaica and Belize. The problem is easy to state, but difficult to solve. Broadly speaking, after 1st January 1993 the European Community must introduce a single market for bananas. This requirement runs counter to its obligations under the Lomé Convention. African, Caribbean and Pacific producers of bananas believe that they are just as efficient as dollar producers. Nevertheless, largely for geographical reasons—the countries are small and mountainous—their price is higher. There is therefore a real danger that ACP bananas will be driven out of the EC market post-1992.
We may well ask: does that matter? I believe that it does because bananas are a special crop which has been the engine for economic growth in the Caribbean as well as essential for political stability. Were that source of strength to be taken away it is difficult to see what legitimate business could be put in its place. We are left with the insidious drug trade. Furthermore, if

869
the trade in bananas fails the cost to the UK and the EC in aid will increase dramatically. The seriousness of the situation cannot be overstressed. I believe fundamentally that this is a political issue rather than an economic one.
I appreciate that this is a very delicate moment in the negotiations on this matter, particularly given the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers last week, and the developments on GATT. However, it would be most helpful if my noble friend the Minister could give us any information about the current position. It would be particularly helpful to hear that the British Government's commitment to the Caribbean producers of bananas remains as firm as it has been in the past. Perhaps I might add that the concern of the Caribbean banana industry is that there is virtually no time left to establish a managed market before 1st January 1993. There is a growing likelihood that, with the absence of Customs posts and barriers within the single market, dollar fruit will be dumped after that date in previously managed markets such as the United Kingdom. These are very real concerns and anything that my noble friend can say on the matter will be most welcome.
Before turning to the wider Caribbean, I should like to say a word about aid. There is, I understand, a review taking place on aid policy generally. The philosophy behind it is that aid should go to the poorest countries. I think that this is a point which we can all appreciate, but it means that the Caribbean's case is not as strong as it might otherwise be. Perhaps I may, therefore, make the following points. First, we have spent a lot of time encouraging Guyana towards democracy and have used our aid budget as a stick. If we are not able to continue to give aid to support the new government, what message will that convey about our seriousness about democracy and the rule of law?
Secondly, there is a pressing case for a private sector aid window. If we believe that the private sector both here in the United Kingdom and in the EC is the principal motor for growth—I think that the Government believe that, and I do —we should develop strategies which recognise the importance of the private sector and which are operated not through governments but through private sector institutions.
Finally, we need to find simpler ways to ensure that our aid programmes reach those for whom they are intended. Much, for example, is spent on a never-ending stream of consultants. If this is necessary, could we not consider placing more consultancy work with Caribbean firms?
turn now to Britain's relations with the wider Caribbean. Quite understandably, the Government's concern has been to put in place a framework for good government in the dependent territories. But we should not lose sight of the fact that we need a forward-looking strategy towards the larger and wealthier countries of the Caribbean. These relation-ships will, I believe, be predominantly based on trade and investment. I have already referred to the shift in power which will come from the opening up of Cuba, but we need to look at our relations particularly with Jamaica, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. The wider Caribbean constitutes a market of around
870
50 million people, almost the same size as the United Kingdom and, incidentally, larger I believe than many of the markets of Eastern Europe. Our trade particularly with the non-British Caribbean has grown. Puerto Rico is our fastest growing investment market and has an annual import bill of £8 billion. The Dominican Republic is our fastest growing export and tourist market. From the British point of view the danger is that we could lose our traditional markets without getting the benefit from growth in the non-traditional markets.
There could be a serious negative effect on the English-speaking Caribbean countries as the Hispanic influence grows stronger. This will almost certainly lead to closer trading linkages between the larger economies of the Western Caribbean and the United States. What should the British Government's attitude to all this be, and what, if anything, could they do? Would it not be possible to look again at our diplomatic and commercial representation in the area? Of course, there are constraints on resources and I recognise the importance of the dependent territories and our ties with members of the Commonwealth. However, unless the whole area prospers, smaller islands could become politically unstable.
It is therefore disappointing to have only one second secretary dealing with commercial work in the whole region and no resident representation in the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico. We rely on two excellent honorary consuls, to whom I should like to pay tribute, Mrs. Maureen Tejeda in the Dominican Republic, and Mr. Ian Court in Puerto Rico. I am not suggesting that we should pare down further our diplomatic representation in the English speaking Caribbean, but we should look at our longer-term needs well into the 21st century. This may mean, for example, locating a smaller number of "superposts" in two or three locations in the region, with staff able to travel to those countries where previously there have been resident missions. Another suggestion is that we should have more commercial representation within the region. If that happened—and certainly if we had a permanent representative in Puerto Rico—we could encourage more British investment in the Caribbean.
I should also like to see greater co-operation between the private sector and the Government, and between the private sector in the Caribbean and that in the United Kingdom. We need to help the Caribbean to export principally in non-traditional exports, particularly by programmes designed to encourage the penetration of the European Community market. We need to link up small businesses in the Caribbean with businesses started in the United Kingdom by Caribbean immigrants. An overall strategy for the region could encompass these points.
Finally, we should consider what help we can give to the Caribbean's relations with the European Community. We should be under no illusions: Europe has few, if any, long-term reasons to care about the Caribbean unless the countries of the Caribbean themselves and their friends in the EC can find reasons for doing so.
I have already referred to the problem of bananas but the time will come, if it is not already here, when GATT and NAFTA end the existing preferences from the Caribbean.
Then there is the Caribbean's relations with NAFTA as well as Mexico. When NAFTA is a reality it is likely that the establishment of free trade agreements with individual Latin American and central American states will erode the preferential advantages of the Caribbean basin initiative. In all these matters I believe that we should develop policies that actively deepen and widen Caribbean regional integration.
Time, I fear, does not allow me to talk on many other issues which are of great importance to the area. Everyone would like to see a peaceful transition of Cuba to democracy. But will this happen, and can we and our EC partners help that to come about? Should we not, if we are not already doing so, encourage a dialogue between Cuba and the United States?
I hope that I have said enough to show that the future of the Caribbean matters to us as a country. Our first priority must be to the dependent territories and I welcome the initiative that has been taken even though I, and I believe chief Ministers, have some reservations about it. But there is also a pressing case to have a broad strategic policy for the whole area which looks forward to the 21st century, particularly towards the larger and more prosperous of the non-English speaking Caribbean. This requires, too, the whole area to see where it is going, and that is why I believe that we need to do all that we can to help the widening and deepening of the integration process.
The Caribbean should not remain isolated from all the great changes taking place in the world. What is important is that it should not be forgotten that its voice should be heard in Europe and the United States and that the Caribbean should have the opportunity to take advantage of the great changes going on to bring about greater prosperity for its people and with it the strengthening of democracy.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for asking this Question. She has become an honorary West Indian and we are proud to welcome her to our midst. We are grateful to her for the part she plays in exposing our causes.
I intend to spend most of my speech dealing with bananas, and I make no apology for doing so because it is the government's immediate task to prevent the economic destruction—I use those words advisedly—of the Windward Islands. They can only do so by preserving a market for their bananas. The banana industry is the life blood of the islands. I shall give the House one or two figures to show what I mean.
Bananas provide 70 per cent. of the export earnings of Dominica, and 30 per cent. of Dominica's workforce is employed in the industry—one person in three. Bananas provide 60 per cent. of the export earnings of St. Lucia, and 38 per cent. of St Lucia's national income. Bananas also provide 40 per cent. of
872
the export earnings of St. Vincent. Noble Lords can see the importance of the industry to the life of those areas. The banana industry is fundamental to the social and political stability of the islands.
The arrival of the single European market on 1st January 1993 threatens the complete destruction of the banana industry in the islands unless they can be provided with a secure market within Europe comparable to the secure market they now enjoy in the United Kingdom. In theory they have secured that through the Lomé Convention. It strengthened the protection they enjoyed as traditional suppliers to the United Kingdom market which was safeguarded under Article 115 of the Treaty of Rome when the United Kingdom joined the European Community. In theory the protection is there but it is not quite as straightforward as that.
The Commission has been grappling with the problem for the past four years. The task has been difficult because the Community has to balance its obligation to the ACP suppliers under the Lomé Convention with its obligation to its own producers, to its customers, and, internationally, under the GATT. The Commission has recommended a quota system which would be acceptable to the Caribbean banana producers. However, as the noble Baroness pointed out, a recent meeting of the Council of Ministers failed to agree to those proposals and there were no alternative proposals. There is therefore a real danger that if there is no arrangement for a managed market in bananas, on 1st January there will be dumping of dollar bananas. Caribbean bananas will be unable to compete and this could lead to the eventual demise of the Caribbean banana industry and a dramatic deterioration in the social and economic fabric of a number of Caribbean nations.
The Caribbean banana industry is in no position to compete with dollar bananas from central America. The physical limitations of the islands with their small size and difficult terrain inhibit their ability to compete internationally in agriculture, whether in bananas or other crops. That is a fact. Agriculture is generally rain fed because irrigation would not only be extremely expensive but virtually impossible. As a result, land productivity or yield per acre is comparatively low—about 8 to 12 tonnes per acre compared with the 18 to 24 tonnes per acre of the large flat plains and rich alluvial soils of central America.
Moreover, the vast majority of producers are small farmers. There are 23,000 growers in the Windward Islands whereas the industry in central America is based on large plantations, often owned by multi-nationals. The costs of inputs are much higher due to smaller volumes, whereas the costs of inputs of the dollar bananas are low because of larger volumes. The shipping costs are generally higher in the Caribbean, again because of smaller volumes. Thus the dollar suppliers can achieve economies of scale that could never be reached by the Caribbean. That does not relate to bananas only. It is true for most of the crops that the Caribbean Islands have attempted to grow.
Agriculture in the West Indies has always been export-orientated. Before bananas were introduced as

873
an export crop, the islands exported mainly sugar. However, at various times export crops such as cocoa, nutmeg, copra, arrowroot, citrus fruits and cotton were tried. However, except for cocoa and nutmeg which have survived in Grenada, the other crops were largely unsuccessful and gradually declined in importance. Even sugar, the principal export for many years, suffered a major decline with the introduction of beet sugar in Europe. Increasing supplies of and competition from beet sugar forced down prices and placed the Caribbean sugar industry under tremendous pressure. It was difficult for the Windward Islands to compete internationally because they had also to compete with the rest of the Caribbean. All the Caribbean islands, from Jamaica down to British Guyana, were producing sugar, and they were major sugar producers as compared with the Windward Islands.
I shall give your Lordships a little history because it is important to understand the position vis-à-vis these islands and bananas. In the early 1950s the position became difficult. It was essential to find another crop to save the islands from economic decline and to avert social unrest. The Windward Islands at that time had no valid alternative outside agriculture. There were no other industries such as mining or manufacturing, and tourism was in its infancy. What was required was another export crop to replace sugar in magnitude and economic importance, and to absorb the relatively large and growing rural population. Bananas fitted the bill perfectly. Not only was it relatively easy to shift to bananas on the sugar cane fields, but banana cultivation was a much greater attraction to the growing numbers of small peasant farmers than ever sugar was. Cultivation practices could easily be adapted to small farm conditions.
Indeed, the banana is the perfect cash crop for the small farmer. It is non-seasonal and through the Ratoon process it has a continuous cropping system which provides a weekly or fortnightly harvest. That means that it provides a regular source of income throughout the year for the small, self-employed farmer. The small farmer thus became very important to the agricultural sector and to the islands' economy generally because, in addition to his traditional role as a producer of food for domestic consumption, he had now entered into production for the export market. Thus the small farmer became important.
The Caribbean banana industry has steadily improved the quality of its fruit. It is fair to say that while the bananas cannot compete on price, they can, on average, compete on quality. It is therefore essential that the United Kingdom (which now holds the EC presidency) should use all its influence to secure an agreement during the next five weeks. I say that advisedly because the Danish Minister is one of those expressing doubts about the Commission's proposals. It is rumoured that the Danish presidency will probably recommend a 20 per cent. tariff on bananas as a means of dealing with the issue. I can assure your Lordships that that would lead to the demise of the Caribbean banana industry, because the
874
Central Americans will flood the market with dollar bananas and, when they have driven the Caribbean bananas from the market, will raise prices.
I have concentrated on the banana issue because of the danger to the Windward Islands and frankly because it is an issue upon which Her Majesty's Government are apprised of the consequences of failure. They are fighting hard for the Caribbean. We in Parliament must give them every support. I hope that when the Minister replies she will he able to assure the House that bananas from the Caribbean will have their EC markets secured before the British presidency expires on 31st December.
As I have said, I have spoken mostly about bananas; but there are many other issues. If the House will permit me, I shall take another three or four minutes to mention them. There is the issue of sugar. That is not in the same position as bananas because it is covered by a protocol of indefinite duration. The price of cane sugar is tied to the price paid for beet sugar under the CAP, and there are proposals for changes to the CAP which will have the effect of reducing the price paid for beet sugar and consequently cane sugar. In any case, even if that were not happening, the GATT negotiations will probably bring about a reduction in the price paid for sugar.
Rum will compensate to some extent. Rum producers should benefit from a new protocol; but here too there are problems, including that of EC quotas up to 1996 being agreed in a manner which reflects the letter and intent of the Lomé rum protocol. There is also an inbuilt tariff advantage for rum from Guadeloupe and Martinique (which are French departments); but they are minor problems compared to those of bananas.
There is then the tourist industry. There are problems for British West Indian Airways in its struggle with British Airways over Caribbean routes. I have been asked to raise the issue of direct flights to Grenada by British West Indian Airways. The Grenadian Government are anxious that they should take place, but I am told that British Airways is objecting on the grounds that there are insufficient passengers; and that even if there were sufficient passengers, it is in a position to meet the need. I hope that the Government will recognise the value of allowing both carriers to operate once weekly flights direct to Grenada. That provides the customers with choice not just in respect of carriers but airports, because British West Indian Airways flies from Heathrow and British Airways flies from Gatwick.
More important in terms of tourism, is the infrastructure. I hope that the Government will take on board the need to give help to the islands with the development of their infrastructure which is essential for a successful tourist industry. I merely have to compare what I saw in Bermuda with what I know of Grenada. The infrastructure of one compared with that of the other is chalk and cheese. For a successful tourist industry, infrastructure is essential and I hope that the Government will take that on board.
I wish to raise an important matter affecting the West Indian community in this country. When they retire, many West Indians wish to end their days in the

875
Caribbean. If they do so, their pensions are frozen and the pensions they take with them remain the same—pensions do not increase with inflation. So the pensions gradually lose their value. But the sum involved is not large and the pensioners will have paid for that already through taxes and national insurance contributions. The pensioners receive the increase if they remain in this country. It would be a good gesture to the community to change the policy and allow pensions which are carried abroad to be increased in line with inflation, as if they had been paid in this country. Moreover, the country to which the pensioners retire will have higher inflation than this country. Therefore, as I say, the pension will gradually reduce in value and in terms of its ability to keep the pensioners. I know that the Minister cannot commit the Government on such matters which are not within her portfolio.
However, I can raise one matter which is in her portfolio. I believe that the Government can support the movement towards unity in the Caribbean through the Government's aid policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned that. That is very much in the hands of the Minister. I hope that when she replies she will be able to tell me that she has taken on board much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. Those matters are important to the Caribbean.
I cannot ask the Minister to commit the Government on issues which must be decided at the highest level. However, one of the biggest contributions the Government can make to the Caribbean is to use the close association and special relationship with the United States to bring about a rapprochement between the United States and Cuba. I await the Minister's reply with (shall I say?) expectation and anxiety.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Glenconner: My Lords, may I first thank and heartily commend the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing this crucial debate on Caribbean affairs. I can do little better than to echo what the House has heard from my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead. The debate comes at a time when dark clouds are gathering over the Caribbean and there is an indication of a storm far more severe than any natural hurricane, far more devastating than hurricanes Alan, Andrew, Hugo and Gilbert put together.
I am a natural backwoodsman and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, my parish is the Windward Islands, particularly St. Vincent and the Grenadines and St. Lucia. When I spoke last week to my right honourable friends the Prime Ministers of St. Vincent and St. Lucia, the Right Honourable James Mitchell and the Right Honourable John Compton, their message to your Lordships was unanimous and clear: "Save the banana". The message could have been shorter: "SOS".
During the period that I have been out in the Caribbean, I have seen traditional crops one by one wither away. Believe me, at present there is no
876
alternative to the banana, quite apart from the fact that in an area that is subject to hurricanes, the banana is one of the few crops that offer hope of recovery. As it has only a nine-month cycle, in theory it can be planted and produce another crop within the hurricane season, within a year. It gives the Caribbean—which is subject to the hurricanes, unlike Central America —an opportunity to recover which it would otherwise not have.
As my noble friend remarked, I have been witness to the demise, one by one, of all the traditional crops. First, there was sugar cane which was seen off by sugar beet. Then there was cotton which bowed to synthetics. This afternoon, I am wearing a shirt which is the last of its kind. It was spun in 1961 from the last crop in Mustique of the noble strain V135, the West Indian sea island cotton. It is now extinct, as is the sugar industry in St. Lucia and as is virtually the arrowroot industry in St. Vincent, due to synthetics.
Now, once again, we see possibly the last viable crop in the West Indies under threat. The banana boat will have to be steered very carefully to go between the Scylla and Charybdis of GATT and the EC—on the one hand tariffs and on the other hand free trade. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, pointed out, neither of those will be the answer for the eastern Caribbean. The only hope is to navigate through this narrow strait and with the help of Her Majesty's Government arrive back in the calm waters of Lomé IV and a managed market, as was promised, until the year 2002.
We all sympathise greatly with the rapeseed growers in France and the miners here in England whose plight is none of their fault. However, with the greatest respect, perhaps I may say that for them there is a safety net. I hope that they will never have to use it, to that extent, but their safety net is that they live in a welfare state where there will be compensations and opportunities for retraining. In a welfare state one can count on not becoming destitute. But that is not the case in the Windward Islands. Many people are already unemployed, but there is no unemployment benefit. There are no sickness benefits unless people are already in employment, no maternity grants, no child benefits. The countries simply cannot afford them.
In this gentler, caring age that four small, young, third world countries can be deliberately devastated so that perhaps they may later qualify for aid is senseless. It seems to me to be little else than a case of absentee colonialism—the worst possible kind of colonialism where decisions are made thousands of miles away without reference or without compensation.
We are not speaking about banana republics—your regular fly-by-night banana republics—but about banana kingdoms because in these countries Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State. Her Majesty the Queen has not forgotten these islands and nor have members of her family. She pays regular visits there. These kingdoms have belonged to England at least since 1783 with the Treaty of Versailles, as was confirmed in 1815. These people are not some remote tribe, they are our relations. That has been pointed out this evening. More than one million of their kith and kin from the Caribbean have come to England since

877
the war and have become British citizens leaving behind the auntie Erolines and uncle Winsberts with the old quean in Kingstown looking after the grandchildren. They are our relations and many of them are worthy people who have grown up in the Caribbean since their childhood.
In St. Lucia alone, with a population of 140,000, in the past 13 years there have been two Nobel prizewinners, that is Sir Allen Lewis the economist, and this year the great epic poet, Derek Walcott. These people treasure their independence which was only won 10 years ago. They have every confidence that Her Majesty's Government will find a way of steering them through these difficult waters. I am sure it will be your Lordships' wish that that should happen.
I should like to say a few final words on quite another subject. If Her Majesty's Government are wondering what to give the Windwards for Christmas—"a little present for de Christmas!"—I hope I may suggest the following. In 1978–79, when these territories became independent they were promised a golden handshake of £10 million. Some £5 million of that was a grant and £5 million, not yet all paid, was a loan. If Her Majesty's Government wish to give a delightful surprise to that area they could perhaps convert that loan into a grant and relieve those hard-pressed governments who have to find out of their own resources the money to pay for administration, schools, doctors and other things which were previously paid for by grant-in-aid. This is not a large sum of money and it amounts perhaps to 50p per head of the population. However, in these very difficult times it would be a wonderful present to those patient, undemanding and loyal friends.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, on behalf of this House I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, on his maiden speech. I do so most warmly. He speaks with great authority and has made many points which we shall want to turn over in our minds, including many points we did not know previously. We have, if I may say so, waited a long time to hear the noble Lord's maiden speech. I think we all agree that the speech was worth waiting for. We hope very much that he will not wait a further decade before giving us the advantage and pleasure of hearing him speak again, and not necessarily on this subject only.
Others will join with me in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for focusing our attention on the Caribbean. I know from my own experience that she has been one of the few Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers who has consistently taken an interest in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, knows that I do not include her in that mild reproach.
I cannot pretend that I have any specialised knowledge of the Caribbean, but it is plain for anyone to see that the people in the area find themselves, as we all do, in a new world. They are suspended between three continents and those who once took an interest in them no longer feel a need to do so. Professor
878
Hennessy, of Warwick University, an expert on the affairs of the area, in a letter he kindly sent me, succinctly summed it all up when he stated:
"The Caribbean is probably at the most critical moment in its history with the impact of the North American Free Trade area and the European Community, the uncertainties of the GATT and the question mark over Cuba".
He is quite right. Each one of the problems mentioned by the professor is difficult enough. The question which we in this country must ask ourselves is: can we make some contribution to their solution? We are certainly under a strong obligation to try to do so and this obligation will continue for many years into the future.
As others have said, our connection with the West Indies has existed for several hundred years. It has been enhanced by the influx of their people into this country sharing our language and religion, and incidentally vastly strengthening our athletic resources. Sometimes our connection has been cruel and harmful; at other times it has been mutually beneficial. Fortunes have been made by some of our fellow countrymen and British enterprises in sugar and fruit have prospered to the benefit of ourselves and the islanders. As a member of the European Community we have helped for the time being their trade interests by the terms of the Lomé conventions.
It is true that some of the profits made in the West Indies were ploughed back and have been well employed. An example known to many noble Lords is Codrington College in Barbados which is now being restored and extended. Funds have come, as one would expect, from All Souls College, Oxford, with its Codrington connection and a development fund has been energetically raised by residents in Barbados, in this country and in Canada.
The point that I should like to emphasise is that we are required to discharge an important obligation. That obligation is more than any that we may have towards ex-colonial territories in Africa, for example. Admittedly, unhappily, the West Indians are more developed and intellectually more equipped than many other third world countries which had connections with us.
For many years our interests have been strategic as well as commercial. The Royal Navy has operated in the Caribbean for centuries and naval victories in World War One and World War Two in the South Atlantic were made possible as a result.
The United States' strategic interests are protected by its base in Cuba, the future of which will depend upon developments there. It seems likely that the American interest will remain, but one can hope that it will eventually be reconciled, as it has been, for example, in the Philippines.
Older members of this House will recall the remarkable response of volunteers from among the people of the West Indies in 1939 when the Royal Air Force in particular benefited. The navigator of Field Marshal Montgomery's plane in Europe was a recruit by the name of Barrow who eventually became Prime Minister of Barbados.
It is a strange fact that the nearest the world has come to a nuclear war was during the Cuban missile crisis. Nine years ago we were debating the military

879
action of the United States in the Commonwealth island of Grenada, which gave great offence to some people here, whereas it was wholly in the interest of the islanders who should not have been neglected by us. It should not have been left to the United States to assume the responsibility that they did.
Perhaps I am looking too much to the past. The West Indies may have lost their strategic importance, but we cannot ignore them. They are, as Professor Hennessy pointed out, suspended between the Community and NAFTA. The problems are largely commercial. They need help and guidance on how best to adjust. The Caribbean Trade Advisory Group, set up by the British Overseas Trade Board and now under the chairmanship of Michael Adda, should be able to help itself by fostering trade and industrial development in selected islands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, correctly drew attention to Puerto Rico and it is worth continuing to study what is happening there.
The work of the Trade Advisory Group is complemented by the West Indian Commission. It would seem logical for the islands to feel their way to greater integration in spite of the past failure of the West Indian Federation. However, there are many obstacles, as the lukewarm reception of the report by Sir Sonny Ramphal has revealed. It is not for us to dictate to the islands what to do and how to integrate. Integration can take many forms. National feelings, even in small islands, are very strong. There is little doubt that the North American Free Trade Area will attract the larger islands, for example, Trinidad and Jamaica, to say nothing of Cuba in due time. It is essential that we should stand ready to help them and to see that obstacles are not necessarily put in their way.
In the European Community we have Dutch and French allies with whom we should consult and co-ordinate. We help with development aid to the best of our ability and also in the education field, but it is not enough. We must continue to accept our obligations and act as friends.
One matter where our responsibility is clear is the management of the Caribbean dependent territories. Those islands are a relic of the dissolution of the Empire; they are our direct responsibility. Their present constitutional relationship is unlikely to change. They are especially vulnerable to drug trafficking and the laundering of drug money. I am satisfied from conversations that I have had with members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that their problems are being energetically tackled. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is training personnel who will be specially equipped in their administration.
We have every reason to be proud of our past colonial record and the small territories deserve our special attention as never before. The board of management which has been set up under a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister should facilitate this. I hope that the cuts that have been made in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office vote will not impede developments.
880
We have an obligation to the area which we must try to discharge. Our responsibility to the dependent territories is inescapable.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for introducing the debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, on his maiden speech.
There are a number of issues that are of vital importance to the lives of the people who live in the Caribbean. Those issues have been dealt with very adequately by my noble friend Lady Young and others whose knowledge of the Caribbean is far greater than mine. It has been a wide-ranging debate, but the scope of my noble friend's question is wide.
With regard to the subject of bananas, I recognise the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. However, I would like to make a plea in relation to the Latin American bananas or the so-called dollar bananas because in those countries people's livelihoods depend very much on the production and on the sale of that product. I believe that there should be a single market in bananas which gives the producers of all countries fair and non-discriminatory treatment. To construct elaborate quotas is not the right way to solve the problem. I am unhappy about the current European Community proposals, although I recognise the need for transitional arrangements. There is a case for the European Community to provide direct assistance to help those countries which have a mono-crop system and need to diversify.
Turning to a more general point, because of my own background and interest in the development of European co-operation and the institutions that reflect that co-operation, I look with interest at the structures within the Caribbean. My noble friend Lady Young referred to developments in that area.
Given the North American Free Trade area, which impinges upon the Caribbean via Mexico as well as the United States, given the Central American market and given the Andean Pact countries which impinge on the Caribbean via Venezuela, there is a great risk that the smaller countries may get lost or squashed between the various giant groupings. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Caribbean Council for Europe and the recent fifth European conference enabled the voice of the Caribbean to be heard in Europe because not only was that voice heard, but each of the countries and the regional bodies to which I have referred had to get together and work together. In this context I assume that the Organisation of American States also has a role to play in co-ordinating views and policies, and I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would let us know the Government's views on the future development and interaction of these regional groupings, and indeed their relationships with European institutions.
The other main point that I wish to make reinforces again a point raised previously in the debate, and it relates to the problems and the real dangers that can result from drug trafficking. Although I understand that in most cases consumption—that is to say, consumption of hard drugs—is not a major problem

881
in the countries we are concerned with here, the effect of being transit countries and in the centre of an ever-developing communications network makes the risks of the problem of consumption arising in the future very real indeed.
I trust therefore that the Government will continue in their policy of demand reduction in terms of activity in this country as well as of aid-related projects in this field. When we talk about the economic development of these countries we need to recognise that a failure to provide alternative crops, a failure to provide markets and fair trading conditions, and failure to provide for the long-term development of the economies of these countries could lead to problems greater than any we have seen to date.
My aim is to be brief, and I therefore end with a specific reference to Venezuela. Venezuela may be recognised as a country rich in oil, as indeed it is; it may be less known that its second main industry is the banana industry. Again I say that the livelihood of many people depends upon that. But an important and interesting development in terms of the world's energy needs is the production and export of orimulsion. I mention that as an example of diversification. Orimulsion is the trade name of the new liquid fuel which is a bitumen-in-water emulsion which can be used for generating electricity and heat and power for industry. It adds to the diversity of supply of raw fuel. It competes favourably with coal, and indeed is already on trial in this country in four or five power stations.
However, I have noted already—and this is why I venture to refer to this specific issue—that suggestions are being made, without any proof, that this substance is less environmentally friendly than other fuels. If we wish to encourage the prosperity of the region I hope that there will be some means by which we can avoid any possibility that vested interests in this country will attempt to obstruct the use of this new substance.
I must finally apologise to your Lordships' House in advance because I fear that, owing to the late hour of our proceedings, I may not now be able to stay until the end of the debate. I regret this and will of course scrutinise Hansard to be aware of other points that may be made if I find that I am not able to stay until the end of the debate.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like other noble Lords I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing this subject and for her continued commitment to the interests of the Caribbean. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, became hooked on the Caribbean when she had a spell at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am delighted that, while she no longer has responsibilities in government, she pursues the interests and welfare of the Caribbean so vigorously.
In reading some of the briefing notes that I have received, which consist of reports of a large number of conferences on the subject of a common market in the Caribbean and integration of the Caribbean states, there was one thing that seemed apparent, and that was the feeling among the people in the Caribbean
882
that, with the great events taking place in the world following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the development of the European Common Market and the proposal to expand the North American Free Trade Association, this little group of islands in the Caribbean did not seem to be featuring in these changes, and its interests were perhaps being totally neglected as the world concentrated on what are regarded as the big issues. I am quite sure that the people and governments of the Caribbean, some of whom will read this debate, will feel reassured that in the House of Lords at least we have pursued the subject of their welfare and their best interests.
Among so many experts who have spoken in this debate and who will speak following me, I have to establish my own credentials. I have been trading in the Caribbean for over 40 years, including arranging access to international capital markets of some of the islands which required finance. In addition, I worked in the great experiment of Puerto Rico, and I shall come back to Puerto Rico since it has been mentioned in the debate. A few weeks ago I was in Belize, so perhaps I should start with Belize.
The total population of Belize is 200,000 and the area covered by Belize is the size of Wales, so it is not important in a geographical sense; but in the sense that it is a bridge between Central America and the Caribbean it is very important indeed. It is important, too, that its northern border touches Mexico and its border to the west touches Guatemala. It is important, therefore, now that the North American Free Trade Association negotiations are proceeding. Belize is strategically important as a country that is so close to the Mexican border, which is going to be part of NAFTA, so I do not apologise for mentioning it.
Belize is a part of the Commonwealth, and it deserves great respect for its human rights record and its operation of a democratic state when one considers that its immediate border is with Guatemala, which has an appalling human rights record, and that San Salvador and Nicaragua are not far away. It is great to have, in an unstable area, this centre of respect for human rights, for the democratic process, and respect for the law when there are such neighbouring countries as Guatemala, San Salvador and Nicaragua.
We support Belize by having a battalion of the British Army stationed there. While I am a pacifist by nature and conviction, that is the one case where I feel I could justify the continued presence of the British Army. That provides protection against a possible invasion by Guatemala, which has claimed Belize for over 100 years. Without the presence of the British Army there would be great danger that Guatemala—which is now moving towards democracy but is still uncertain—would pursue its objective of taking over Belize, which it believes should be part of Guatemala. What is just as important is the fact that the British Army plays a very decisive role in controlling the drug traffic. That area is a drug corridor, and the presence of British troops is a tremendous support to the Government of Belize in their fight against the drug barons.
Belize is one of the central American states and at the same time is part of CARICOM. Despite its small

883
size and population it is very important that we continue to have a presence there and encourage their government. Belize has developed a tourist trade with protection of the Great Reef and the environment. It has an extremely liberal immigration policy which is becoming dangerous in one sense because 20 per cent. of the population comprise of refugees from Guatemala, Nicaragua and San Salvador and that may cause tensions. They are Spanish-speaking and Belize is the only English-speaking area in central America. The Belize Government deserve our encouragement and support in their great achievements through the democratic process.
Puerto Rica has been mentioned. Puerto Rica is one of the most exciting developments not only in the Caribbean but in the world. To be frank, when I was originally invited to go there the first thing I had to do was find it on the map. I arrived in Puerto Rica at the beginning of Operation Bootstrap which changed the whole economy of that country. Instead of being a somewhat backward area it now has the atmosphere of a bustling mid-west American city. Puerto Rica was one of the first countries to have 10-year tax holiday provisions. It has the advantage of being part of the United States. It is not a state of the United States but is an associate state, which means it has direct access to the United States market but pays no taxes to the United States Government. It is indeed in a very favourable situation.
Puerto Rica has achieved a very great deal by first-class leadership and by getting across the idea of Operation Bootstrap; that is, that you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. It has generated a sense of pride under the remarkable leadership of a man called Munos Marin, who was President of Puerto Rica. Interestingly enough, following an election he won every seat in Parliament—and it was not an East European election but a perfectly democratic election. He amended the constitution to provide that one-third of the seats should be allocated to the opposition, although they had not won them, because he believed it was not a good thing for a government to have no opposition. That kind of enlightened leadership of Puerto Rica raised its status and brought about economic success.
Belize and Puerto Rica are important because of the negotiations which will take place with NAFTA. I see the Caribbean moving more and more into the area of the North American Free Trade Association. Mexico is part of NAFTA. Puerto Rica is part of the United States. It is very important that we see the Caribbean not as being too much oriented towards the EC but becoming more and more involved in trading relationships with the North American Free Trade Association. I presume that NAFTA will replace the Caribbean Basin Initiative which has proved a great success in giving Caribbean states free access to the United States market. An adjustment is required to make sure that the CBI is replaced under the new arrangements with NAFTA.
If one looks, for example, at Jamaica, 60 per cent. of that island's trade is with the United States, and 50 per cent. of its imports are from the United States.
884
Looking at the Caribbean in the future, I believe it will be moving more and more into the orbit of NAFTA, which would not be a bad thing.
With regard to the disappointment expressed about the failure to secure early integration of all the Caribbean states—that view was expressed recently by Sonny Ramphal —when reading the minutes of various discussions and debates one cannot help feeling that it is a bit like Maastricht. Many of these countries have their own cultural backgrounds: some are Spanish, some Dutch, some French, some American and some are Danish. Each has different traditions. One does not have the convergence of those islands in terms of economic performance that permits the kind of integrated ambitions of Sonny Ramphal, and others.
I would not be too disappointed at the fact that these countries have not immediately achieved the aim of the Caribbean Common Market. I believe that they are in a pre-Maastricht phase. But that does not mean there should not be greater co-operation between the islands. The great jewel of the Caribbean is the University of the West Indies. Students are no longer coming to our universities from the West Indies. They can get a perfectly adequate education at the UWI and the various campuses in the islands. That degree of co-operation has been achieved without all of the political implications that the integrationists have in mind.
I believe that the idea that has come out of the conferences about having common representation in various parts of the world is a very desirable objective. The present arrangements whereby each island has its own representative, or even its man at the UN, must be a tremendous burden on many of these islands. I believe that integration or co-operation in common representation overseas is another area that can be developed. I wish the islands well in their objective to secure integration, but, like many countries in Europe, they have long and different histories. I can understand some of the immediate hesitations. Anyone who has watched the islands play cricket will realise the degree of commitment to their own interests. That has got to be taken into account.s
Once more I hope that the Caribbean islanders will have listened to this debate and at least feel that they are not forgotten.
9 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, a number of things have surprised me tonight. First, I had no idea that there had not been a debate on the Caribbean in your Lordships' House. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for having introduced it. It also surprised me that only 17 per cent. of Caribbeans speak English. I had thought that it would be a far greater number. I was further surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that they are still almost totally dependent on bananas and if that commodity collapses, the economy collapses. From the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, in a remarkable maiden speech made without notes, which proved conclusively

885
his absolute knowledge of the area, I was surprised to learn that sea island cotton had gone almost for all time.
One asks: what future does the Caribbean have? What future does it hold for us? Is it the West Indies? Is it a place where fortunes were made and lost? Does it have any economic future at all? I ask myself whether I am qualified to speak tonight, and I reply that I do not think I am. But it was 55 years ago, give or take 10 months, legend has it that I was conceived on the beach of Ocho Rios, during my parents' honeymoon. I was what would colloquially referred to at that time as "a mistake". A few days later someone was rude to my mother and as a result my father, much as an amateur boxer might do, laid him out, was arrested for criminal assault, locked up briefly, prosecuted and let off with a three and sixpenny fine. I have a great affection for Jamaica and the Caribbean. Perhaps that led me with some of my colleagues to embark upon hopeless assignments—not so hopeless as those of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—to advise and assist those very countries to find some future.
I went to Nevis the queen of the Caribbean to be reminded that Nelson had come there from Bath and there met and married Miss Nesbitt and found the finest water in the Caribbean. I went on to Jamaica where again Bath was founded. One looked at the Bath river which cured and healed people. I went to Barbados, the Bahamas and right the way on until finally I ended up saying, "If the Americans cannot trade with Cuba, surely we can". The late Lord Walston (I call him my noble friend) and I went together to visit Cuba. I had the honour of holding the world record London-Havana-London by Concorde just for lunch. I love it out there. Perhaps I may with something of an upbeat feeling say that the assets of the Caribbean or the West Indies are not the countries themselves. Sugar production has dropped in Jamaica down to a few hundred thousand tonnes although it is still high in Cuba. The assets are the people of those islands. They are the entrepreneurs of the world. The countries themselves or their governments may have become poor but not the people. They are everywhere. They are starting businesses all the time. They are constantly thinking of new ideas.
I move to some of the cultural aspects. It is said that it is an imported culture. When I go to church, none of my family will stand next to me when I sing, because I can sing on only one note. I am apparently almost tone deaf. When I go to the Caribbean and listen to the beginnings of calypso, reggae and rap, and see how businesses have been made and created out of the sheer rhythm of the place, I think again about those rhythms. Then I have some feelings of regret, but not total regret. When I first went there I had all the right introductions. The introduction to which I paid no attention was a letter from the secretary of the MCC, which was by far the most important introduction that I could have had. I remember sitting one day on St. Kitts and listening to a noise outside my hotel window. It was a continual "click, click, click". I looked out and went down. There I saw some cricket nets. There was a man
886
wearing a hat and laid back in a hammock teaching children to hit a cricket ball, each cricket ball being a lump of wood suspended by string from a branch of the tree. He was saying, "You may murder the British, you may murder the Australians, you may murder everybody, but never murder the ball. If you want to be good at cricket, do not murder the ball".
If a collection of countries like that, with a relatively small base and all the problems of internal relationships can go out and create cricket teams which perform so well, there are many other things that they can create.
What is the future of the West Indies, or the Caribbean, economically? In the long term perhaps it cannot be bananas. In the long term perhaps it cannot be sugar. It certainly is not cotton or agricultural produce. It has to be something else. Perhaps, in looking towards its future, we as a nation more than any other should undertake to help it.
I come to a number of areas which have not been mentioned today but where the Government do quite a lot. There is one organisation for which I have a great affection, initially because it was the only body I could find that was required by law not to make a loss. I refer to the Commonwealth Development Corporation created in 1948, which has been a major investor in the Caribbean. I believe that something like £130 million, which is only 13 per cent. of its total commitment, has been made there: £70 million to Jamaica, £10 million to Cayman, £10 million to Bahamas or perhaps it was Barbados, £6 million to Belize and £5 million to Trinidad and Tobago. It even has a programme which, probably out of the total of £130 million today, may increase by a third, if my noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development will give it that encouragement and support. It is an organisation that needs far greater support than it has at the moment.
In those countries with which I have dealt—I myself come from an island and therefore have an affection for islanders —I have noted one thing especially. Islanders are extremely interested and heavily involved in politics but they have the ability to change their politics from time to time. We are now faced with the inability to justify the extremism of communism, which makes it difficult for some nations to find an opposition. We have to say that all the territories at the moment look more and more—to use a term that I do not like but which is acceptable—to "privatisation". There is a recognition that government cannot do as much as individuals.
I return to what I said earlier about those individuals in the Caribbean who have far more reason than we have to be entrepreneurs. For the past 25 years or so when one asked a question in this country or made a suggestion someone would ask "Why?". Ask the same question in the Caribbean and the answer comes back, "Why not?". It is that initiative and thought that needs to be encouraged. I draw attention to one or two examples.
I was in my professional career involved in assisting one of the countries to begin to privatise its hotels. That was at a time when everyone said that its politics were so bad that it was not safe to go there and that

887
no one would invest. As 12 of the hotels were privatised an interesting development occurred; some 80 million dollars of private money followed as investment to upgrade and to improve them. Everywhere that I have come across that mood the money appears to follow. I believe that often the money has been held abroad by people who have been successful overseas and are prepared to invest in their own country.
We should not forget too the high level of repatriation of funds which comes from those in the Caribbean who work abroad successfully and who want to return. I and perhaps many noble Lords share the dream of people who work here. It would be nice to earn a large amount of money and to retire to the Caribbean. I am advised that even on relatively lowly pensions it is an area of exceptional merit. First, one does not have a high cost of heating. Secondly, one does not need many clothes. Thirdly, the food is readily available—or is it?
When I was looking at the tourist industry in the Caribbean I was surprised to be told that approximately 80 cents of every dollar's-worth of goods bought by tourists had to be imported. I refer to food, drink and other items which logically could be produced. Although members of your Lordships' Select Committee on manufacturing said that we do not want to be entirely a tourist country here the potential for the growth of tourism in the Caribbean is great.
I do not believe that the United States understands the Caribbean or that it ever will. The cultures are so different. I record only one incident when I happened to be on a particular island at the time of the Grenada incident when Mr. Bush and Mr. Baldrige came to lobby it for support. Many people in this country could not understand what the fuss was about. A major attempt was made to gain support for a boycott. I was sitting at table for dinner and, needless to say, when the word "boycott" was mentioned the biggest concern was whether he would play cricket in South Africa. I do not believe that the United States has the ability to resolve the future of the Caribbean.
However, there is another country with which we co-operate closely and should do so even more—I refer to Canada. It has considerable interests in the Caribbean, in particular because when the weather is bad in Canada it is nice in the Caribbean. I am not sure what a government can do at present except to promote and to encourage trade. Above all we should encourage the enthusiasm and the entrepreneurial spirit of the individual West Indian.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Young for her initiative in raising the subject of the West Indies. I spent a great deal of time visiting many of the Caribbean islands on business when I was chairman of Cable and Wireless. I had many discussions with government leaders, trade union representatives and local businessmen. Therefore, I identify myself with the aspirations of the
888
Caribbean people to improve their economic well-being as they gain or develop their political independence.
We are talking about democratic communities with independent judiciaries and developing traditions based on centuries of association with and guidance from Britain. They have been loyal members of the Commonwealth despite the gravitational pull of North America. They deserve more than a few moments of our time in order to ventilate their problems. I suppose that one critical question is whether our willingness to encourage and to assist the political independence of the West Indian communities was fuelled by our desire to reduce the economic cost to this country of sustaining those communities which were struggling from a low base of productivity, technological development and limited economic and social resources. Furthermore, in consequence, has this country a special or moral responsibility to assist those communities to sell their products in an increasingly competitive world dominated by large trading blocs with restricted access?
I believe that we have such a special responsibility to use our influence in the one forum with which this Government have linked our future; that is the European Community. But facing the future in Europe must not mean turning our backs on our friends. When the United States forces invaded Grenada, which is a member of the British Commonwealth, in order to preserve the political stability and democratic institutions of that country, much concern was expressed about the legitimacy of the action. Personally, I had no doubts about the necessity of such emergency action. But military intervention in a third world country to preserve political stability makes no long-term sense if economic and social conditions are ignored. Therefore, your Lordships will understand if I take this opportunity to reinforce the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, by commenting on the economic and social importance of the banana crop to various Caribbean communities and reviewing the critical significance of preferential access to the wealthy European Community market.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, in his thoughtful, compassionate and admirably delivered maiden speech, emphasised the absolute dependence on bananas. However, bananas are just one small item in a nation's import account and a very minor item in the consumer's shopping basket. However, to many Caribbean communities, the successful marketing of the banana crop is a matter of life and death. Bananas and tourism dominate those economies. Both are affected by extraneous factors such as exchange rates, hurricanes and a hostile economic environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, pointed out that in the case of Dominica bananas account for no less than 70 per cent. of its GDP. That applies, to a lesser degree, to St. Lucia and other Caribbean countries. It is true that every opportunity is being

889
taken to reduce that dependency by diversification but inevitably that will take generations to implement, if it is at all possible.
What can we do to assist those courageous communities to pull themselves up by their own efforts? First, I suggest that we should affirm that it is in everybody's interests to see those communities expand by their own efforts rather than by cash handouts. Secondly, the European Community must allow the Caribbean banana producers access to its market through balanced quotas, which ensure a level, and stability, of prices that give both producers and small farmers a worthwhile return and in consequence provide economic and social stability in those Caribbean communities so heavily dependent on the banana crop.
It may be argued by Community officials that the current arrangements are satisfactory in being even-handed in providing quotas to producers from all parts of the world, and that, with the advent of the single market by January 1993, consumer interests must also be safeguarded. When one contemplates previous and present distortions of the market, favouring producers and national interests—such as the special arrangements for the Iron and Steel Community, the subsidies for coal and nuclear power, and the grossest distortion of all, the common agricultural policy, including the blatant protection of the French oil seed industry—it would be cruel and perverse to resist the powerful claims by the Caribbean countries for special consideration over other dollar banana exporting countries which have more balanced economies.
Of course, the Caribbean countries must play their part. They should constantly improve the quality and marketing of their product. They should seek advice from the large, progressive retailing groups in this country. They should work closely with the main exporting traders, such as Geest and Fyffes, for better marketing and seek reduced distribution costs. But the vital battle will take place in Brussels, and it is there that I ask Her Majesty's Government to press as strongly for understanding of the Caribbean banana producers' position as the French will for the banana interest of their overseas territories. In essence, the Caribbean producers are asking for transitional relief until their costs are brought into line with prices to give them some margin to keep their communities alive.
I understand that at last week's meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, the Ministers refused to discuss the Commission's proposals on bananas. That is understandable in the light of the domination of the agenda by the GATT issue. What is not understandable—and perhaps the Minister will comment in her reply—is why the British Ministry of Agriculture allegedly failed to respond to the request for members to table alternative proposals. That means that there is no time left to establish a managed market before the single market comes into operation on 1st January 1993. As has already been said, that will inevitably lead to a flood of imports by the dollar producers. Further, the presidency passes to the Danes on 1st January 1993 and it is likely that they
890
will propose a tariffication solution to the banana problem. That would leave the Caribbean producers worse off than if bananas had been subject to GATT.
I urge the Government, therefore, while they still retain the initiative afforded by their presidency, to press now and urgently in the Council of Agriculture Ministers and the Foreign Affairs Council for continuing the protection provided by the Lomé Convention and its banana protocol—and in particular to continue the quota system, based on real market trends and not on the proposed artificial levels achieved by dollar imports in 1992 and projected for 1993. The Community proposal to limit the imports of Caribbean bananas to 1990 levels is manifestly unfair and makes no economic sense, particularly as the Caribbean producers, unlike their competitors, have no alternative market and therefore would he denied their share of growth and the opportunity to reduce costs. I hope that both the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture will speak with one voice in advocacy for our Caribbean friends who, in an increasingly hostile world, can look only to this country for the assistance they richly deserve.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the political and economic future of the Caribbean. I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, for a powerful and impressive maiden speech.
Most of the speakers in today's debate clearly have ties of family or friendship with countries in the Caribbean and therefore our interest in the region is based upon strong feelings of affection for, and in many cases a deep personal knowledge of, the people and the countries. Approximately 1 million of our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom are of Caribbean origin. Our island culture was initially exported to the Caribbean islands who enriched it and in turn re-exported it to Britain.
In culture, sport, education and political and legal institutions we share a common heritage. Many in this country took great pleasure when Derek Walcott won the Nobel prize for literature. As has been said, we admire Caribbean sportsmen and women for their excellence, whether they play in the Caribbean or in the United Kingdom, although I suspect that for many of us the prospect of a four-man pace attack of the West Indies cricket team is something to be frightened of rather than admired.
I stress those deep-rooted cultural, social and political ties because they are current and not simply historic, and because they form the basis of a special relationship between the Caribbean and Britain. That special relationship has, of course, changed significantly over the years since independence. Now, with Britain's eyes fixed firmly upon its future in Europe, it is changing again. Our concern to establish our role in Europe could lead to a weakening of our relationship with other parts of the world. I urge the Government to guard against that possible drift away from historic links and to ensure that our special relationship with

891
the Caribbean and other parts of the world is nourished and actively developed. Those relationships not only enrich our political, social and cultural life, but they are also of great economic importance and benefit to both Britain and the Caribbean.
Those economic ties are founded upon trade and investment. Trade must be reviewed in the context of the development of world trade agreements and, more particularly, regional trading blocs. Investment must address the specific requirements of Caribbean countries. Bilateral country to country trade negotiations have now been superseded by negotiations between these large trading blocs.
For its part, Britain needs to develop an approach to the Caribbean which not only covers the English speaking countries but also the rather more populous French and Spanish speaking countries which together have sizeable and fast-growing economies. Britain, thanks to its special historical links, can and should play a leading role in developing the European Community's relationship with the wider Caribbean. It is important for the English speaking Caribbean to develop CARICOM to the point where it can become an effective voice and can negotiate for the region. It is disappointing that at their recent meeting Caribbean heads of government did not move more positively and enthusiastically towards a CARICOM commission for I believe that such a commission would strengthen their bargaining position in world affairs.
The principal trade issues at the moment concern the future arrangements for the export of bananas and sugar from the Caribbean to Britain and other EC countries. Many of your Lordships have emphasised the critical importance of both crops to many islands. It is no exaggeration to predict that without a guaranteed outlet for that primary product, a number of island economies would collapse. I hope today that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government will use every effort to support the European Commission's proposal to create a protected quota for Caribbean bananas and specific-ally that they will oppose tariff-based regulations which are likely to favour the richer banana-growing countries.
Over-dependence on one crop or one natural resource is widespread in the Caribbean and can only be tackled by product and industry diversification. Many of the Caribbean countries, particularly the larger ones, are making important moves to develop a more balanced economy. I believe that the British Government can do much to help that process. Aid to the poorer countries in the region can help to fund the training and infrastructure projects essential to the development of new industries. Investment in new commercial ventures by both government agency and the private sector is often the only way of getting such ventures off the ground.
The CDC is an important source of risk capital. The Government should encourage and enable it to play an expanded role throughout the Caribbean basin. I understand that the CDC's ability to enter into joint funding with the private sector is often circumscribed by the Treasury's definition of public
892
sector financing. I hope that the Minister can use her good offices to persuade the Treasury to ease those guidelines so that the CDC can work closely with private sector finance for innovative investment opportunities.
Many countries in the Caribbean are now opening up their economies through various economic reforms such as deregulation and trade liberalisation so that the private sector can become a major force for economic development. Perhaps we may consider the case of Trinidad and Tobago, a country blessed and occasionally cursed, by its oil resources. Trinidad is seeking to reduce its dependence on the public sector for investment and employment generation. Unemployment in Trinidad is running at nearly 25 per cent. Trinidad is also seeking to diversify away from its dependence on energy.
A loan from the Inter-American Development Bank is supporting a range of economic reforms in Trinidad to stimulate the growth of private investment in the country from both domestic and foreign sources. That loan will fund the development of a legal and institutional framework, including a one-stop investment agency and a securities and exchange commission which will all help to create a more favourable climate for overseas investment. The loan will also support efforts to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of adjustment to new industrial development and will also provide the training necessary to support the new industries.
If countries like Trinidad and Tobago are to escape from the vagaries of commodity prices they must develop a more broadly based economy. To do that they require financial assistance from foreign governments and agencies and the active participation of foreign investors. The British Government have a dual role to play. They can provide financial and technical assistance. For instance, why not consider a Caribbean know-how fund? They should—indeed must—encourage private investment.
The British Government's trade and investment promotion activity in the region is far too thinly spread. The resources are simply inadequate for the job and do not do justice to the opportunities available for British inward investment. There is a good case for Britain to upgrade its commercial representation to ensure that it takes full advantage of this fast-growing Caribbean basin market.
There is a desire within the region to see an increase in British and European investment in order to counter-balance the investment which flows from North America. Although the region is expected in due course to become an associate or even full member of the North American Free Trade Area there is a strong desire to sustain the existing special relation-ship with Britain and to ensure that Caribbean economies do not become totally dependent on the United States.
Finally, I should like to touch briefly on the problem of external sovereign debt in the Caribbean. Many of the countries in the region fall between two stools. They are too rich to be considered poor and yet, sadly, too poor to be considered rich. They have not therefore benefited from some of the more

893
generous arrangements to forgive or reduce overseas debt. They are still saddled with substantial borrowings which must be serviced out of hard-pressed currency reserves and which make additional borrowings very hard to obtain. British Government policy should acknowledge this enduring burden and recognise that faster economic development is the only solution to the problem. More investment and technical assistance, greater trade representation in the region and a sustained effort to work with Caribbean countries to encourage and facilitate private sector investment is the best way of helping these countries to achieve faster economic growth and the best way of protecting Britain's current and long-term economic and political interests in the region.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already paid to my noble friend Lady Young for providing the opportunity to debate the future of the Caribbean. As the last of the Back-Bench speakers on such a comprehensive list, there is really nothing new that I can say. However, I hope that my few brief comments will at least bear repetition.
I have visited the region both on holiday and with my husband in his capacity as chief executive of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. All visits—no matter for what reason—have been a pleasure. It is such a beautiful part of the world with a large, warm and mostly very clean sea. There are so many interesting things to see, such as the volcanos of St. Lucia, the Petit Piton volcanic needles, the green Sisseroh parrots of Dominica and the spectacular blue mountain coffee slopes of Jamaica.
There is a strongly held view that the Caribbean region needs to establish and expand successful private sector ventures on which to base its trade with the single European market and the emerging North America Free Trade Area. It also needs to develop strong economic and political ties with its trading partners. As my noble friend Lady Young said, well over half the population have Spanish as their first language and nearly one-fifth are English speakers. Our historic links go back over a long period.
It is accepted that pan-Caribbean strength, which embraces the whole region, is to be encouraged as the area competes in world markets. However, as is well known, the Caribbean is characterised by countries which vary from the comparatively well off Martinique and Guadaloupe to the very poor Haiti and Cuba. Political fragmentation of the Caribbean can lead to events which are an embarrassment, to say the least. The most notable occurred in Grenada, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sharp. It must be in our interests to make every effort to encourage stability and progress in the smaller Caribbean states. Although the West Indian Federation, which was formed at independence, was a failure, new and welcome moves towards regional co-operation are taking place through CARICOM, as my noble friend Lady Young described in detail.
894
Development needs to be encouraged in order to improve and decrease the disparity between incomes. Economic opportunities are not easy to find in the smaller Caribbean islands which historically have been heavily dependent on sugar and bananas. A great deal has been said about bananas already this evening by noble Lords who know much more about the subject than I do, but I must add another word on the subject. The outcome of the meeting last week of the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers does not augur well for the future of the Caribbean banana industry. This will have particular significance for the smaller islands. The bigger islands can aspire to an industrial base; for instance, methanol production in Trinidad. In Jamaica American companies invest in factories adding value because of high, inexpensive labour content, and the products are imported into the US under the Caribbean basin initiative. But all need to recognise the importance of diversifying agricultural production into non-traditional exports such as fruit and vegetables. Tourism has probably the greatest potential as the industry of the region.
Capital investment in infrastructure is another important area for development. To a lesser or greater extent the islands will be able to make a contribution towards financing capital expenditure through savings, but external help will be needed. Electricity and telecommunications are sectors where there is already much activity. For instance, a Canadian company is the majority owner of the power company in the Cayman and CDC is the majority owner of the power company in St. Lucia. Once ownership is established continuing provision of capital often follows. Cable and Wireless, as my noble friend Lord Sharp will know a great deal better than I, is very active in the Caribbean and makes a major contribution. This is a particularly encouraging example as no company will continue to invest in this way unless it is profitable.
The governments of Caribbean countries with British connections are encouraging the inflow of foreign capital. They are removing unnecessary obstacles to investment and by and large they are able to service their debts. A continuing contribution to the development of the Caribbean countries with which we have the strongest ties will benefit both the economies of those countries and their political relationship with the United Kingdom.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing this debate which, as she rightly said, has come at the right time—one might say, high time. I only hope that it is not too late. One of the impressive aspects of the debate is the sense of urgency; the sense that we have to find a way through the problems which confront us in a very short time.
I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Glenconner for his most notable maiden speech. It combined virtues which are rarely combined—sincerity, eloquence and knowledge. That is something from which we have all gained. I hope that we shall hear from him again short of another 10 years.

895
The theme or aspect of the debate which has gone on emerging and which I find most worrying is the very real danger that the Caribbean will be marginalised, that it will slip between the two great trading blocs because it is rather small and rather fragmented, and will simply be forgotten. That seems to he a genuine danger and one which must concern us all and one which we must try to prevent. The danger of marginalisation is partly because of our perception of the Caribbean and partly because of its intrinsic fragmentation. There are a huge number of islands spread over a vast area. Its geographical, political, linguistic and historical heritage are all fragmentary. This increases the danger to which I have referred and reinforces our perception of the Caribbean which tends to see it in anglophone terms; in cricketing terms; in terms of people of West Indian origin living in this country. The total perception is of a relatively small anglophone Caribbean population whereas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others have told us, the population amounts to 50 million which is, after all, about the same as this country's population.
Secondly, it is worth reminding ourselves that we are discussing the crisis which faces the Caribbean, but the major economic problems facing the people are not of their own making. Their trade has deteriorated sharply over the past two decades. The oil crisis of 1973 affected them more drastically than it affected the developed world. The price of the primary products that they export has about halved, whereas the price of goods that they import has about doubled. The position is not one of their making, but it is one with which they have to deal. It is, as Michael Manley said, rather like climbing up an escalator which is going in the opposite direction.
However, during this rather dispiriting ordeal, it is remarkable, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out, that during the midst of these stringent economic conditions they have sought and striven towards achieving more and better democratic institutions, organisations and practices. That is a creditable and remarkable achievement. As has been said during the debate, there are two questions confronting us: what can they do to help themselves, and what can we do to help them help themselves? Again, I have been impressed by what people have said about the real and profound nature of our obligations towards the people living in those islands; by the urgency of the crisis; by the fact that those who now depend upon bananas have, anyhow in the short term—if we take that as being the next 10 years —no real available alternative. There is, again, the danger of their being marginalised and slipping between the two trading blocs.
There is a short and a long-term problem. The first is how we see the islands through the short-term crisis facing the banana industry; and, secondly, what we want to help them attain in the longer term. In that respect, the report of the West Indian Commission has been mentioned frequently. The programme that it
896
has offered—based clearly upon the analogy with the European Community—which proposes that the way through is by political and economic integration is of course in principle attractive and would seem the obvious course for them to pursue. I am persuaded that, in principle, it is the right development and the right way for them to go. However, I have been impressed by suggestions made by a number of people who know the Caribbean much better than I do who have described the real, historical, geographical and emotional difficulties which will exist if they are faced by a programme of rapid integration. The formula may be too closely modelled upon the European precedent. There may have to be modes of co-operation; and ways and means of developing co-ordination of a different type when dealing with islands that are so widely separated and with such different histories, particularly if one is to embrace within that area of co-ordination not merely the anglophone countries but the French and Spanish-speaking ones which, as many people have said, have very different traditions.
However, whatever one's reservations about the West Indian Commission's report, it seems to me to provide a way ahead for British policy. It seems to me to say to this country, "You have reached a moment, come to a time when you have to formulate a new and coherent attitude towards the Caribbean, based on responding to contemporary conditions". Such a policy I think would see the enlargement of CARICOM to include all 50 million people which would be able to talk to NAFTA and the EC. That is the key point. That is why some degree of co-ordination is essential, because without it, how can they talk to these huge trading blocs? I think I am right in saying that at the moment in London there are 10 High Commissions talking about bananas. That is not a sensible way of getting a good bargain.
Therefore, whatever the difficulties, some kind of co-ordination of policy throughout the Caribbean must be devised if it is not simply to slip between these two trading blocs. It seems to me that in this, British policy, British diplomacy, the British relationship has an important and constructive part to play.
Further, it is an opportunity to rethink our aid policy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who I think said that if aid is to be confined to the poorest, the Caribbean will come out badly. That would be a poor way in which to fulfil our obligation. In many ways, it seems to me that the Caribbean needs the kind of aid which we are giving the central and eastern European countries. When the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, mentioned the know-how fund, I had written it down myself. What the Caribbean needs is know-how of the kind we are giving in central and eastern Europe: know-how in training, in education, in building the kind of institutions which underlie a prosperous market economy, the kind of institutions which underlie and support a solid democratic structure.
Those seem to me to be the objects which we should pursue in our policy towards the Caribbean: an

897
encouragement of integration, whatever the difficulties, for the reasons I have given; a provision of aid which is designed for a country of that order of poverty and wealth and which concentrates on
898
providing the infrastructure of knowledge and institutions from which it can build the long-term alternative to the banana industry.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, deserves the thanks and appreciation of us all for having introduced the debate tonight with her characteristic clarity and sound knowledge of her subject. I shall hope to underline some of her observations during my remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, made an outstanding maiden speech. It was full of passion, humanitarian concern and invaluable direct experi-ence. I know that we all look forward to hearing him repeatedly in debates of this kind.
A number of powerful representations from outside organisations about the debate illustrate the significance and timeliness of the subject. I think Christian Aid has concisely summarised many of the concerns so well expressed in the introduction to its helpful brief which I should like to quote:
"1992 sees two important dates: the deadline for the completion of the Single European Market … and the quincentenary of the arrival of the first European in the Caribbean.
500 years after the arrival of Columbus, Europe—and in particular the United Kingdom—still has a major responsibility for the economic well-being of the people of these islands".
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and others have recognised in what they said our very special responsibility for the dependencies: Anguilla, the British Virgin Isles, the Cayman Isles, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands. It would be appropriate to remind the House that some doubts have arisen in some quarters as to how far the Government remain committed to eventual independence. It would be helpful if the Minister could tonight clarify the constitutional future and spell out exactly how the Government's policy now stands on the economic development of the dependencies.
The Caribbean region, as the debate has underlined, raises interesting issues in terms of aid policy. Rightly a priority for ODA across the world must be the needs of the poorest. On the whole the Caribbean does not rank in this category, but if we genuinely want to see self-generating development, the relationship with precisely this kind of region with all its exciting potential is crucially important. It would be a strange approach to development which abandoned nations on the brink of take-off. The Minister's thoughts on this will be important, not least on what she sees as the role of the ODA in co-operating with NGOs and the private sector, as called for so cogently by the West Indian Commission and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, and others tonight.
In this context, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, reminded us, the Commonwealth Development Corporation has had a distinguished record in the Caribbean. It would therefore be good to learn more from the Minister tonight how she sees its future role. But there are, of course, still areas of desperate need within the region. Haiti has the worst health record in the Western hemisphere with life expectancy of only 54 years and an infant mortality rate of 123 per 1,000 live births.
900
Indeed, according to the Catholic Institute of International Relations in its publication entitled Profile Haiti the appalling levels of sanitation, malnutrition and health provision put Haiti on a par with the nightmare in Sub-Saharan Africa. The situation in the Dominican Republic is also disturbing with the infant mortality rate at 70 per 1,000. Infectious diseases which are poverty related and preventable account for, I gather, as many as 85 per cent. of the deaths of women at childbirth. Malnutrition among young children is on the increase. Situations like these obviously present immediate challenges to Britain's aid programme and we anxiously await the Minister's words tonight on how she is meeting them.
Jamaica has one of the highest per capita debts in the world —some £1,000 per head for every man woman and child owed to the industrialised world. About £80 million of that is owed to the United Kingdom alone. Some 25 per cent. of Jamaica's gross national product goes on debt and interest repayments. The consequent cuts in social infrastructure have been draconian. Some hospitals lack even aspirin and bandages. Families are frequently expected to provide linen and food and patients are sometimes required to share beds. Alleviating the crippling debt crisis in the region as a whole is of course essential if self-generating development is to have any hope of success. But surely at the very least the Trinidad terms could be extended to countries such as Jamaica. It would be good if the Minister could this evening indicate some initiative in this respect.
Development is about more than aid. Trade is, of course, vital. The outcome of the current GATT negotiations will have profound implications for the Caribbean. As my noble friend Lord Pitt has so movingly brought home, it is difficult to exaggerate the life or death importance of banana exports to Britain for the people of the Windward Islands and indeed Jamaica. Any undermining of the special access to Britain could cause catastrophe for 30,000 small farmers in the Windward Islands who work their own plots, frequently less than one hectare in size. In Dominica, too, bananas account for 70 per cent. of exports. The poor quality of the soil and the steep and rocky nature of the terrain mean that prices are inevitably higher than those of the so-called dollar bananas from Central and Latin America. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, argued, it may well be that diversification is essential. However, diversification is easier said than done, and it takes time.
On 1st January next, in the context of the single European market, we cannot abandon our Caribbean friends who have supplied us so well. The Lomé Convention spells out the position very clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, has reminded us. I quote from the rules:
"In respect of its banana exports to the Community markets, no African, Caribbean and Pacific state shall be placed, as regards its traditional markets and its advantages in those markets, in a less favourable situation than in the past or present".
The European Commission has drawn up a sensible proposal for a protected quota for ACP bananas exported to Europe, based on current export levels

901
and a 20 per cent. levy on all bananas that are imported from Latin America. However, the latest news from Brussels is not reassuring. The Community is not rallying behind the proposal. In the corridors alternative schemes are actively being canvassed based on tariff rates that are supposed to keep ACP bananas competitive in a free market. However, such a scheme could easily fail because it would be open to manipulation by multi-national dollar banana companies which have ample resources to subsidise their products for a time in order to undercut ACP bananas, forcing them out of the market despite the tariffs.
We have little more than a month to secure the position of our Caribbean friends. We need to hear from the Minister tonight exactly how she proposes to do so, thereby honouring specific pledges that were made by the previous and the present Prime Minister in this respect.
My noble friend Lord Pitt spoke of sugar, which presents another grave crisis for the Caribbean. As part of the reform of the common agricultural policy, Europe is considering a new sugar regime. The European Community produces more sugar than it needs. The surplus is dumped on world markets, driving down international prices by as much as 15 per cent. For people in countries like the Dominican Republic, that means decreased earnings and increased poverty. However, the European Community has an agreement whereby it buys 1.3 million tonnes per annum of sugar from a number of its ex-colonies at the same price that it pays to the domestic beet sugar producers. That is substantially higher than the world price and provides a very valuable form of assistance to countries such as Jamaica. The proposed changes to the European Community sugar regime will involve a reduction in the European Community sugar price. That situation could cause havoc among those in the Caribbean who have supplied our needs so well in the past and whose economies and social organisation have been tailored to do just that, founded as they were on ruthless exploitation and slavery.
Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that there will be compensation and assistance with diversification for ACP producers, should there be any reduction in the price paid for their sugar, and, for that matter, that at long last effective steps will be taken to end the dumping of surplus sugar on world markets?
Bananas and sugar illustrate the new pressures on the Lomé convention. Such pressures will probably increase as GATT seeks to remove the so-called trade distortions and as enlargement of the Community brings in countries that have no traditional links with the ex-colonies. The balance of voting power in the Council of Ministers will move away from supporting Lomé countries. Lome has provided a very important pillar of development policy in the past. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the UK will insist that if Lomé provisions are to be weakened or removed, they will be replaced by other forms of assistance.
902
Meanwhile, there is still room for improvement in Lomé. It is disturbing that despite Lomé preferences, Caribbean countries find it easier to export horticultural products and textiles to the United States than to the European Community.
Healthy trade is naturally two way. The Caribbean is a market of 50 million people. The United Kingdom's approach to this market seems extraor-dinarily complacent. Why is it that in some of the largest parts of this market, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, reminded us, we have no formal diplomatic representation and rely on splendid honorary consuls to promote trade in their spare time? By contrast our North American and European competitors are upgrading their commercial representation and export promotion throughout the Caribbean region. Can the Minister assure us that the United Kingdom Government intend to pull their finger out in this respect?
No debate on the Caribbean would be valid without reference to human rights. Since the military coup in September 1991 the people of Haiti have been literally terrorised by the regime. It is estimated that in the first six months after the coup 2,000 people died of bullet wounds, 500 died after torture, and 6,000 people were wounded by bullets. In their determination to eliminate popular support for the legitimate president, both secret police and military have targeted non-governmental organisations and members of the opposition.
Christian Aid has advocated that the European Community should establish a special budget line for human rights and democracy in Haiti. Oxfam has argued that a return to democracy and renewed economic progress can best be tackled through the NGOs of Haiti, and it has put forward proposals to the European Community on their behalf. Can the Minister tell us what support she is giving to these initiatives? What is the Government's position on refugees from the regime?
In British Guyana the new government elected on 7th October in the first free elections since 1964 faces a tough task, not least since the outgoing government of the People's National Congress looted a considerable amount of government funds and property before they left office. I wonder whether the United Kingdom Government are going to provide assistance for the process of democratisation. Amnesty is concerned at the growing number of prisoners of conscience in Cuba. But the internal demand for reform there is growing. It would be good to hear of any contingency economic planning by our own Government, the European Community and the United States to assist in the process of transition to democracy as it gathers momentum.
Although not central to our debate this evening Guatemala remains a potential threat to Belize. My noble friend Lord Taylor spoke tellingly about this. The human rights situation in Guatemala is still grim. Has the Minister any encouraging news on the peace process, for peace and democracy will be good news for Belize? I raise these matters because of the Government's commendable commitment to a human rights dimension in their aid policies, coupled with

903
their commitment to support the cause of democracy. We now look for the evidence of consistent and substantial application of these frequently declared commitments in practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the need for regional integration. She is right. Like Europe, the Americas are moving towards integra-tion. Canada, the United States and Mexico are joining in the North America free trade area; Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil are similarly coming together. I suggest we and the European Community should be giving all possible support to facilitate a comparable process in the Caribbean. That process should involve the whole Caribbean Basin including the nations of the Central American common market, rather than the Caribbean islands alone. This could greatly increase the bargaining power of the region as well as providing economies of scale and strengthened development through shared information and technology. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, have spoken of the recent report of the West Indian Commission in this context. It was a constructive report. I hope that the Minister will share with us her reactions to it.
My noble friend Lord Hollick made a significant contribution in what he said about the interwoven heritage and culture of the United Kingdom and the Caribbean. Courageous sons of the Caribbean have fought shoulder to shoulder with us in two world wars. I believe that in thanking the noble Baroness for making this debate possible tonight we have, in the best spirit of this House, demonstrated a bipartisan concern for a flourishing and positive relationship between the people of the United Kingdom and the people of the Caribbean, and that not for the first time we have said clearly to the Minister have the strength of what we know are your convictions, and we will be behind you all the way.
10.5 p.m
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, once again we have had a stimulating and caring debate about the Caribbean. First, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Young for introducing the debate and stimulating many others to contribute so imaginatively to the problems and to look at the challenges ahead, but none more so than the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, in his maiden speech. How right the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was when he said it was impressive. It was imaginative, colourful and, above all, sympathetic in description of the grave dangers facing the banana farmers of the Caribbean, especially the Windward Islands. I shall long remember his reference to the Scylla and Charybdis of the GATT and EC—a better description one would go a long way to find.
This debate is very fitting for it takes place 500 years after the Caribbean connection with Europe began. I hope noble Lords will consider that 1992 marks not the end of that link from which both Europe and the Caribbean have benefited but rather
904
the forging of new relationships. We share with the Commonwealth Caribbean its commitment to fundamental values of democracy, freedom and individual rights. Our historical ties and shared interests encourage us to work together in partnership, for example in the Commonwealth institutions, and further to strengthen our links with and assist the economic and political development of the Caribbean. Britons have enjoyed particularly close and historic cultural relations with the Commonwealth Caribbean. As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said, the evidence is plain to see in our daily lives. The contributions made by the West Indian community to our industry, sport, entertainment and the media are magnificent.
We have a very special interest in the region, not least because of our responsibilities for the five remaining British dependent territories in the Caribbean. Our economic links and institutional ties remain strong. Many of the smaller commonwealth Caribbean countries have become independent in relatively recent years but still look to us for encouragement and assistance. Our continuing commitment to the Caribbean is reflected in the fact that one of the priorities in negotiating our accession to the European Community was to establish a satisfactory development and trade relationship with those parts of the Caribbean with which this country traditionally had enjoyed close and special connections.
The world in which we live is changing rapidly. As so many speakers in the debate have said, the countries of the Caribbean face difficult decisions about their destiny. To avoid that it was very important to have a thorough examination of the issues facing the Caribbean. That was made clear in the recent report of the West Indian Commission chaired by Sir Sonny Ramphal that commonwealth Caribbean governments have been considering.
My noble friend Lady Young, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and others spoke of the danger of marginalisation. Marginalisation must not happen, but I have to say that it is in the hands of the Caribbean governments. They must decide how best to confront the challenges and change for the future. That was exactly what I know Sir Sonny Ramphal was hoping would emerge from that recent report. I may return to it if there is time later.
One of the things I am confident about in the Caribbean is that the basic Commonwealth Caribbean values of democracy, freedom and respect for individual rights will continue to guide them, and other countries in the area have much to learn from the Commonwealth Caribbean. I shall try to deal with the main issues raised. Where I am unable to answer tonight, I shall write to individual noble Lords.
There is an urgency of action. Let me begin with trade. I never fail to remember that trade is lifeblood and it is that lifeblood which most Caribbean people want more than any aid. That is not to say that they do not need help too. They do; but the best help we can give them is through trade. That is why the Government attach the greatest importance to maintaining the close commercial links which the UK

905
has with the English-speaking Caribbean in par-ticular; but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said, to developing commercial relations with the non-English-speaking countries of the Caribbean too. We ignore at our peril the potential of the Spanish, French, Dutch and other Caribbean islands.
We have had a steady growth in trade in recent years. It now exceeds £1.1 billion in two-way trade, the balance of which continues to be in the Caribbean's favour. The Caribbean remains an important market for UK companies which last year exported over £500 million worth of goods to the region. In addition, the total amount of UK investment in the region is of the order of £2 billion. This is an important economic area. I am the first to recognise, as my noble friend Lady Young said, how important it is to have proper representation in the Caribbean.
There are no plans at present to alter the pattern of diplomatic representation in the Caribbean. We review plans regularly and at this very moment we are considering how we can best reinforce our representation in Puerto Rico, a priority market for trade promotion in the Caribbean. There are currently nearly 70 UK-based Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff serving in the area, including the staff of the dependent territories' secretariat which is now being established. Of those, 19 have specific responsibilities for trade promotion. They are supported by a further 19 locally employed commercial staff. But it will behove us well to look again at the way in which we use our commercial staff in the region and to see whether it could be done with better pinpointing of targets.
There is no doubt, as my noble friend Lady Young said, that Puerto Rico has become a very impressive developing country in the sense that it is now a very active trading country too. That is why it is the second BOTB market in the region. It has the most diversified economy; it has a large and sophisticated industrial base with direct access to the US market and an annual import bill now of some £7 billion. The most important thing that we have done, which has certainly helped in markets such as Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Dominican Republic, is through CARITAG; namely, the export promotion activity established by the British Overseas Trade Board some 20 years ago. It receives an annual subvention from the DTI. CARITAG's overall aims and objectives are to increase the value of exports to target markets and sectors by promoting a greater awareness of commercial opportunities in the region and particular-ly in the non-English-speaking markets. But it is critically important that the work that is done through CARITAG is matched by work that is done within the region itself.
That is why I turn swiftly now to the question of CARICOM and the West Indian Commission because it is very important that there is indeed a response from the countries in promoting economic integration and wider co-operation among the countries of the region.
We were pleased to make a small contribution towards the work of the West Indian Commission because we believe that there must be a concerted
906
approach by the Caribbean states. That must be the best response to the developments elsewhere. As was said by my noble friend Lady Young, the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, and other noble Lords, unless there is action within the Caribbean area by the Caribbean countries they cannot benefit when everyone else is involved in their own actions. That is obviously true in relation to the European single market and to the North America Free Trade Area. I should hate to see the small economies of the Caribbean countries marginalised. That is why we hope that CARICOM will have real success in strengthening their ability to work together.
The Time for Action, the report of the commission which was submitted to the heads of government in October for their special meeting, contained more than 200 recommendations. They did not relate simply to the argument for an accelerated process of economic integration and the establishment of the CARICOM commission; they covered the freedom of movement, financial institutions, common currency, wide-ranging economic issues, human resource developments, social concerns and external relations. It is a disappointment to many in your Lordships' House that the heads of government set aside much of the integrationist thrust of the report. However, they were able to agree on some proposals, in particular to strengthen the secretariat.
I hope that there will be further moves to strengthen the way in which the countries of the Caribbean can work together. Without that there is a real fear that NAFTA-the North American Free Trade Area—could divert new investment funds away from the region. That we well understand. The USA is not at present negotiating with Caribbean countries on an extension of NAFTA, a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I believe that when NAFTA concentrates in its next stage on negotiations with Chile and Venezuela a number of Caribbean countries will be worried about that. It behoves the Caribbean to become involved in what is going on and to look for opportunities in markets within their region which they could exploit. That is what we are really talking about.
My noble friend Lady Young, in her first-class opening speech, made us aware of the close-knit relationship which is sought by the United States, Canada and Mexico in the free trade agreement. Although I understand that the agreement has yet to be examined by legal experts before ratification, it is only a year and a month or so before it will come into force. While we welcome the agreement on NAFTA, because it is a boost to free trade and to trade and investment, we are concerned to see that the Caribbean countries might benefit and not suffer as a result. That is why we hope that a greater interest will be taken by the Caribbean countries. However, although NAFTA is structured to allow other countries to join I doubt whether any Caribbean country is yet ready to do so.
Your Lordships asked many more questions concerned with trade but I wish to concentrate now on rum, sugar and bananas. I have often called them the "Lome Cocktail" because it could be poisonous if we

907
do not get it right. I am more aware than most of the critical importance of all those products. Although we speak only little of rum that is of enormous importance to our Commonwealth Caribbean partners. Throughout the Lomé IV renegotiations we pushed hard to phase out the national quotas. I was greatly relieved when late one night in November 1989 I obtained a Community agreement that we should do that by 1993 because that is extremely important for the prospects of the Caribbean producers.
I was asked also about sugar. The Government remain committed to continued access to the Community for the 1.3 billion tonnes of ACP sugar under the sugar protocol to the Lomé Convention to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd referred. The future of that protocol is not under threat. The UK has consistently supported the ACP request to convert the 75,000 tonnes currently imported into Portugal at a reduced levy into permanent ACP levy-free access. However, it will look favourably upon any Commission proposals for the ACP to benefit when additional amounts of raw sugar required by Portugal are discussed within the Community. It is a narrow but extremely important point because it lays the foundations for future dealing on this matter. I shall not go further into the detail; suffice to say, your Lordships should know that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Agriculture are absolutely determined to see that the commitment which we have given is fully carried through.
Before I turn to the all important subject of bananas, on which I believe all noble Lords have spoken, perhaps I may make one comment on the GATT Uruguay Round because it is against that background that we must consider the situation. The Government warmly welcome last Friday's agreement between the EC and US negotiators. It is a key step on the path to an overall GATT agreement to benefit all the GATT contracting parties, including the Caribbean countries. The OECD estimates that a Uruguay Round agreement would add about 200 billion dollars to the world's GDP and about half of that would be of benefit to the developing world. That is why, at every instance, I sought to ensure that the needs of the developing world were fully considered in every element of the GATT round. The next step is for the bilateral and multilateral negotiations to resume in Geneva on the remaining issues before a final agreement can be reached. I take very much to heart the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in winding up for the Opposition and all the comments made about bananas in this debate.
The production and export of bananas play a critical role—often the most important role—in the prosperity of the Caribbean countries. But, as my noble friend Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke said, there is a responsibility among the banana producers, as well as among those of us who import those bananas, to ensure that the quality, handling, marketing and distribution improve. My noble friend Lord Sharp of
908
Grimsdyke made one of the most interesting résumés of what needed to happen to the banana market that I have ever heard in either House.
We have no hesitation in saying that our commitment to the banana producers in Jamaica and the Windward Islands stands; that is, that they should continue to enjoy preferential access to the markets. There is no doubt that France and Spain, which also have traditional banana suppliers elsewhere in the Caribbean, think likewise. The United Kingdom played a leading role in making sure that the fourth Lomé Convention between the EC and its member states and the 69 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries continues to embody that practice in granting preferential treatment. However, as my noble friend Lady Young said, with the establishment of the single market on 1st January next year, those arrangements for bananas, which differ between member states, must be replaced by Community-wide arrangements. We made it clear that those future arrangements must fully meet our Lomé obligations. At the same time, the arrangements must be compatible with the successful outcome of the GATT Uruguay Round which will benefit us all.
Our position is not motivated by economic self-interest but by wider interests, notably those of the developing countries with whom we have these traditional links. It is perfectly true that the European Commission recommended to the Council of Ministers that future arrangements be based on what some call "protected quotas". We have not finished the discussion on those proposals; it still continues. I fully heed the entreaties of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we, as a presidency, should do our utmost to achieve the establishment on time of not only the single market but also a resolution of the banana question.
We are doing all that we know how, but if future arrangements have not been agreed by the end of the year we shall ensure that interim measures are in place to allow access by ACP bananas to the UK market to be maintained. More than that, tonight, I am afraid I am unable to say. I believe that it is absolutely critical to the economies of those Caribbean countries that we succeed in finding an overall solution and, if it is not achieved by the end of the year, that we have a workable interim solution. I might say that it is not simply the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but all government departments, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that are working to that end.
I was asked a number of interesting and important questions. Let me just say that with regard to the dependent territories our policy is that we should not seek in any way to influence opinion in the territories on the question of independence. We do not urge them to consider moving to independence. On the other hand, we remain ready to respond positively when it is clearly and constitutionally expressed by the people of those dependent territories, should it be so.
However, we felt it right, as my noble friend Lady Young said at the beginning of the debate, to have a review of the policy and management of the Caribbean dependent territories. As I told the House

909
on 2nd November in reply to a Question from my noble friend Lady Young, the main conclusions of the review were that we should continue to help the dependent territories to secure economic development within a framework of good government. The arrangements we set up will provide more capacity and strengthen the links between Whitehall and dependent territories and thus ensure that the dependent territory business is given adequate and timely attention. I shall draw to the attention of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd, the comments made in today's debate. They are most important for the future management of the dependent territories.
I remind your Lordships that the review reiterated the importance of partnership with the governments of the dependent territories. It is not a question of the United Kingdom telling dependent territories what must happen. It must be a partnership. That is why we are seeking to draw up jointly agreed country policy plans in which both Her Majesty's Government and the governments of the dependent territories commit themselves publicly to a programme of economic development, on the one hand, and good government on the other. We shall review those plans annually and they will each form the basis for the bilateral aid programme.
Let me turn briefly to aid. I was interested to hear the comments regarding what many of the Caribbean countries need. They are not as poor as the poorest countries in the world although they contain many areas of great poverty. Simply because our memories are of wonderful beaches and summer holidays in the area we must not forget that there are some extremely poor areas in the Caribbean.
The reasonable needs of dependent territories remain a first charge on the British aid programme. Four Caribbean dependent territories—Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands—receive financial assistance and technical co-operation on grant terms. The total expenditure this year is expected to be approximately £20 million, which is about 50 per cent. of the total allocation to the region. It is likely to remain at that level in the coming years.
Our two themes in British assistance to the dependent territories are the development of human resources and the provision of major infrastructure. Our central objective is that those dependent territories should become economically self-sufficient. That obviously implies an ability to finance public investment requirements from healthy recurrent budget surpluses and increasingly from prudent borrowing without recourse to the United Kingdom grant aid.
hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, will accept that, since a decision I took in 1990, we have made sure that all new capital commitments will be on grant terms. We have already moved to help in that way. The additional assistance that we give in the Caribbean to the independent countries works out at about £7 per head. Compared with some other parts
910
of the world noble Lords will realise that that reflects the importance we place on our traditional links with the region.
Certainly our programmes in the East Caribbean islands and Belize have been based on agreements made at the time of independence. Some countries have exhausted the funds now and new agreements are in place. But we are seeking to make technical co-operation arrangements wherever that is worth-while. When we speak of technical co-operation in the developing world it is their equivalent to the know-how funds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We are seeking to ensure that the help we give is relevant to the needs island by island and territory by territory.
Jamaica—that wonderful and important place—has been a beneficiary of the British aid programme over many years. It has received about £48 million since 1978. As it goes further down its independent route we continue to assist it, particularly with diversification from bananas into other agricultural crops and economic sectors. We also put high on the agenda help with the environment for all the Caribbean countries. We are the lead agency for the tropical forestry action plans in the Caribbean.
We want to continue to help in every possible way both technically and through investment. My noble friend Baroness Young asked about the use of aid consultants. Certainly there has been no wish to cut out anybody from being a consultant. We seek to ensure that the expertise provided is that which is real value for money for the Caribbean country. We use local consultants where they show us competence and value for money. They are already working on many aid projects in the Caribbean. If my noble friend has specific cases in mind I shall be only too glad to look at them because it is important that we take every possible opportunity to use local and regional consultants.
My noble friend Baroness Eccles spoke of CDC, as we might well have expected of her. I explain briefly both to her and the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, about the CDC in which we have so much trust. It is beginning to do more and more in the Caribbean. It now has an excellent office in Barbados adjacent to the High Commission from which it is doing first-class work all over the Caribbean. The CDC has not only done a valuable job there but across the world.
I am a great supporter of CDC, as is well known in this House and elsewhere. That was why I thought it rather important to try to secure some new arrangements for CDC financing in the public expenditure survey this year. As from 1st April 1994 the outstanding aid loans to CDC will bear a zero rate of interest. CDC will be able to borrow externally provided that its borrowing meets the government's rules. That should assist it. The zero interest on past aid loans affects all past aid loans. Currently, CDC pays some £25 million per year in interest, which will rise to about £30 million over the next few years. So the new arrangement will be of benefit, although I cannot yet detail how it will be used.
We have also been able to find a way of giving CDC the prospect of borrowing overseas from funds

911
available for some Caribbean Basin Initiative countries. These are what are known as "the 936 funds". It is possible that these, too, could amount to about £20 million a year in due course. If wisely used, that is good news for the CDC and especially for the CDC in the Caribbean.
There is one final topic that I must say a word about before closing. It had been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Young, the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and many others. I refer to the whole question of the threat posed by the drugs trade to the economic and social well-being of the Caribbean region. Sadly, the Caribbean islands are ideal staging posts for the trafficking of drugs from South America to North America and Europe. The societies and the economies of the islands are particularly vulnerable to destabilisation, including violence, corruption and the undermining of confidence in the banking system on which some of them depend. Sadly, most Caribbean states have not been well prepared to meet the threat. They need regular encouragement and assistance. That is why we spent nearly £2.5 million last year in drugs-related assistance. We are giving a further £2 million this year to improve law enforcement as well as to help with education to prevent local drug abuse.
The Government attach particular importance to removing illicit profits from drug traffickers. That is why we have concluded the bilateral agreements with six Caribbean states to work with us to trace, freeze and confiscate illicit profits. We intend to reach such agreements with all countries once they have enacted compatible domestic legislation, and we have given help to some to achieve that. We have done it in a whole variety of ways which I am happy to detail in answer to a Question if noble Lords would like it, but I shall not detail it now because the hour is extremely late. We are more than ever conscious of the need to
912
go on helping these countries to combat that terrible scourge which otherwise could lay some of those islands to waste, could inhibit their very important tourist trade and could change their way of life out of recognition.
The evidence-and there is plenty of it-suggests that the Caribbean is trying and is now really beginning to see how it can benefit from a special relationship with the European Community. I have been heartened by the Caribbean's growing awareness of the need to take a deep interest in European developments. I was very pleased to meet the ACP ambassadors in Brussels only three weeks ago and to discuss with them, above all things, bananas.
In Britain, the Government will take full account of the Caribbean's needs as well as their interests-and their great potential. We should never forget that we are talking about an area of great potential if it is given the chance of maximise that potential. We have seen the end of the Cold War. We have seen invigorated economic growth in different parts of the world. We see now the dismantling of trade barriers and greater integration in the western hemisphere and Europe. We hope that that will mean greater stability and prosperity, but it also means continuing responsibility. And that responsibility extends as much to the Caribbean countries as to anywhere else in the world. We shall stand by them. I believe that this Unstarred Question, initiated so wisely by my noble friend Lady Young, has been of great value in making us focus and concentrate once more on the needs and the potential of the Caribbean countries.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before eleven o'clock.

  REPROCESSED PLUTONIUM: WEAPONS USE
  REPROCESSED PLUTONIUM: WEAPONS USE
  FREE-FALL NUCLEAR WEAPON
  FREE-FALL NUCLEAR WEAPON
  US NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN UK
  US NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN UK
  BALLISTIC MISSILE RISK
  BALLISTIC MISSILE RISK
  TRIDENT II
  TRIDENT II
  HMS "REVENGE": POLARIS FORCE
  HMS "REVENGE": POLARIS FORCE
  NHS LAND AND PROPERTY: SALE PROCEEDS
  NHS LAND AND PROPERTY: SALE PROCEEDS
  ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION: STAGES 2 AND 3
  ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION: STAGES 2 AND 3
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: UK PROTOCOL (PARAS. 3 TO 9)
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: UK PROTOCOL (PARAS. 3 TO 9)
  KING'S CROSS—THAMESLINK PROJECTS: FUNDING
  KING'S CROSS—THAMESLINK PROJECTS: FUNDING
  PERU SUPPORT GROUP
  PERU SUPPORT GROUP
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  CHILDREN: ABDUCTION FROM UK
  CHILDREN: ABDUCTION FROM UK
  HONG KONG SEAT BELT LAW: PENALTY
  HONG KONG SEAT BELT LAW: PENALTY
  MACEDONIA
  MACEDONIA
  TREATY OF ROME: ARTICLE 138a OF MAASTRICHT TREATY
  TREATY OF ROME: ARTICLE 138a OF MAASTRICHT TREATY
  NUCLEAR TESTING
  NUCLEAR TESTING
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 16th–17th NOVEMBER
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 16th–17th NOVEMBER
  WAR CRIMES ALLEGATIONS: PROCEEDINGS
  WAR CRIMES ALLEGATIONS: PROCEEDINGS
  RIOT (DAMAGES) ACT 1886
  RIOT (DAMAGES) ACT 1886
  BRISTOL INCIDENTS, 16th–17th JULY: COMPENSATION CLAIM
  BRISTOL INCIDENTS, 16th–17th JULY: COMPENSATION CLAIM
  PRISONERS' TRANSFERS: REPORT
  PRISONERS' TRANSFERS: REPORT
  VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME: COMPENSATION
  VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME: COMPENSATION