Sitting of 13 December 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although the clock in the Chamber is correct, there are very few others in the House that tell the same time. In particular, the internal television was three minutes out at 2 o'clock, and time is of the essence in this place.
Madam Speaker: There has been difficulty with the electricity during the course of lunchtime, but the clocks in here are absolutely accurate. The others are being taken care of.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Film Industry
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to promote the competitiveness of the British film industry.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): British film makers, actors and technicians are world leaders. It is important that that strength should continue. Earlier this year, I held a series of 10 consultative meetings with all sectors of the film industry, representing production, film financing, facilities and studios, film and video distribution, cinema exhibition and television. We discussed how the level of investment in film production might be raised to strengthen the infrastructure, increase activity and thus encourage competitiveness. I plan to announce my conclusions on the consultations in the new year.
    Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be competitive, the film industry must have the studio capacity to attract film makers? Is he aware of the efforts being made by Hertsmere borough council to save the studios at Elstree—a name synonymous with excellence in British film making? Will he join me in wishing Hertsmere borough council well in its efforts to save those studios, which are so very important for the future of our film-making industry?
    Mr. Brooke: Studio capacity in Britain must be maintained at an appropriate level, but it is determined by market forces. I am well aware of the situation regarding Hertsmere borough council and happily join my hon. Friend in wishing it well in its efforts. I am very much aware, as the whole House will be, of the significant part played by Elstree studios in the history of British film making and hope to see it play an equally distinguished part in the future, but I do not think that the matter is one in which I should intervene.
    Mr. Maclennan: Before announcing his conclusions on the film industry, will the Secretary of State look at the adverse effect that withholding tax on foreign entertainers is having on their participation in British production? Does he recognise that if that tax were abolished—that may be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it could substantially increase the revenue take by the Exchequer and help the British industry at the same time?
    Mr. Brooke: I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. It is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, a matter in which I also take a keen interest.
    Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to market forces and his reluctance to spend Government money subsidising the industry.
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. The Government provide quite significant financial support for the industry, but it was noticeable

    667
    during the consultation period that the representatives of the industry who came to talk to us were looking for things other than financial subsidy.
    Ms Mowlam: Given that the latest figures shows that the United States now controls more than 80 per cent. of European film distribution, why do the French Government—but not the British Government—recognise the cultural and industrial importance of our film industry and fight our corner in the GATT negotiations? What is the Secretary of State going to do to invest in and boost the film industry?
    Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to rebuke the Opposition spokeswoman, but I do not think that she is up to date on what is happening in the GATT negotiations.

    Broadcasters
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the success of British broadcasters in the international broadcasting market.
    Mr. Brooke: Exports of programmes made by United Kingdom broadcasters were estimated at more than £150 million in 1992, and further opportunities are opening up world wide to provide programmes and services.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that BBC World Service television is increasingly popular and in some parts of Asia is now watched by more people than CNN news? Coupled with the British broadcasting industry's recent success in the Emmy awards, does not all that confirm that Britain is still making the best programmes in the world?
    Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating BBC World Television on its achievements. It has expanded its operations into an increasing number of countries since it began broadcasting two years ago and, as she said, it is making a particular impact in Asia. British programmes are renowned for quality and originality throughout the world and I recognise the creative skills and craftsmanship that go into making them.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the Secretary of State like to amend that answer to make it clear that British programmes "have been" known for their high quality? Unless he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are prepared to treat the industry seriously, original production will begin to suffer. We have done well out of independents, but is it not clear that the Government's laissez-faire attitude to television production is the same as their attitude to film production, and that that will destroy the brilliant work that has been done and is being done now?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) drew attention to the six Emmy awards won by the United Kingdom on 24 November. It is slightly churlish of the hon. Lady to say that, as of 25 November, the situation has changed.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the style and clarity of reporting of the BBC World Service have built an enviable reputation for Britain? Will
    668
    he look at every possible way to ensure that we transform that skill into the presentation of news by television on a worldwide basis?
    Mr. Brooke: When the BBC embarked on World Service Television, it was conscious of the reputation that it enjoyed throughout the world as the result of the World Service. It is particularly concerned that the eminence of the brand name of the BBC should be preserved by the quality of what it does on the television side.
    Mr. Corbett: Is not it the case that while a large number of quality British television programmes are sold around the world by the front door, much more money is being spent via the back door by satellite and cable broadcasters on foreign films and television programmes? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, for example, that a healthy trade surplus from television film sales a few years ago is set to become a deficit of £640 million by the year 2000? Will he consider the introduction of European programme quotas for satellite and cable broadcasters similar to those met by terrestrial broadcasters to help trade, to help to sustain our production base and to safeguard our popular culture?
    Mr. Brooke: Again, I hesitate to cross swords with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. However, European broadcasting directives already set quotas for satellite television programmes in the United Kingdom. Therefore, that condition already exists.

    Arts Council
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy for the future of the Arts Council; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: Under the arm's-length principle, the Arts Council is responsible for providing a strategic policy framework for the arts, for managing grant in aid and for the monitoring and appraisal of arts organisations. It is important that it does so within a stable framework that provides clear accountability and is administratively effective, to allow the maximum funds available to go to the arts. I have recently announced proposals for improvements in both those sectors. We shall continue to monitor the council's efficiency through the annual planning process.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: May I invite my right hon. Friend to give us his response to the lengthy article that appeared last week in the Evening Standard, written by his predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who urged the abolition of the Arts Council? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public dissatisfaction with the Arts Council's behaviour in respect of London's orchestras and that that controversy is unlikely to subside until the council clarifies its policy and shows some real leadership?
    Mr. Brooke: I have no intention of abolishing the Arts Council, but I am anxious to ensure that the arts funding system as a whole runs smoothly and effectively. I fully agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex that audiences and performers are the people who matter most, and that is why we want to see more of the money that the Government provide feeding directly

    669
    into the arts. As to the orchestras, the situation is still evolving and the full meeting of the Arts Council has not yet come to its conclusions.
    Mr. Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of the Arts Council was to provide a stable framework. That is exactly what it is not doing, particularly for the orchestras and the regional theatres. If the Arts Council is failing in one of its central duties, as explained by the Minister, surely we must ask what is its function. Surely the Minister needs to bring the Arts Council closer to his way of thinking, which might be a sensible way to proceed.
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member for a long time and knows the nature of the arm's-length principle between the Government and the Arts Council. We have had discussions in the House in the past year about the way in which the Arts Council might be more accountable to its public for its decisions. The Arts Council has made suggestions and recommendations on how that course might be pursued.
    Mr. Channon: Whatever criticism some hon. Members may have about the Arts Council, is my right hon. Friend aware that at least one of his predecessors thinks that it would be sheer folly to abolish the Arts Council and to expose the Department of National Heritage—and himself in particular—to having to take individual decisons between artistic organisations? I do not know who will advise him on that. Does he agree that if he were to go down that road it would be what Sir Humphrey would call a very brave decision?
    Mr. Brooke: My first words in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) were that I have no intention of abolishing the Arts Council. I am grateful for the support and reassurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister now address the crisis of confidence and credibility in the Arts Council that has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House? He further damaged confidence and credibility last week by his cut of £3.2 million, which will lead to the council's having to cut £7 million from its clients. Confidence and credibility have also been damaged by the Arts Council itself in the shambles over the orchestra decision and the problems with the regional theatres this summer.
    Will the Minister make a much sharper and clearer statement about the responsibilities of his Department and what he expects of the Arts Council, rather than the bland generalisations that he has given the House? Will he require the Arts Council to fulfil its responsibilities and not delegate them to High Court judges? Will he announce the successor of Lord Palumbo now and not leave the decision until next year? Will he set the Arts Council a stiff target, to reduce its staff further, in line with the devolution of more than 40 clients in April? Unless he does that, the Minister's own indecision will deepen the crisis that many members on both sides of the House agree currently faces the Arts Council.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman derived a series of questions from a series of running stories in the press, which do not all go in precisely the same direction as the central thrust of his question. The distinction between the responsibilities of my Department and those of the Arts
    670
    Council have been clear throughout the almost half century that it has existed. I have reasserted those responsibilities at a time when there was concern that there might be some shading occurring within the past six months.

    Press Complaints Commission
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the current operation of the Press Complaints Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: The Government are reviewing the effectiveness of press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission, but have not made their final assessment.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite one or two flagrant breaches of the Press Complaints Commission's code in the past few weeks—in particular by the Daily Mirror—self-regulation remains infinitely preferable to any form of statutory intervention? Does he accept that self-regulation must be seen to be effective? Does he agree that, to achieve this, the Press Complaints Commission should have powers to enforce its decisions and to punish newspapers that transgress the code?
    Mr. Brooke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission being perceived and transparent. I also agree with him on the desirability of self-regulation being maintained, if it possibly can be. Obviously the PCC is aware of what has been said to it during the year not only by the House, but by other sources. The Government will publish their White Paper early in the new year.
    Mr. Soley: As the Secretary of State conducts his review will he bear it in mind that, despite a few high-profile cases on privacy, the vast bulk of complaints and public concerns relate to actual accuracy? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman accepts, in principle, my contention that the citizen has a right to expect news to be reported accurately, but will he take some advice, perhaps from his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), and give the PCC real teeth, as the Advertising Standards Authority has, so that it can enforce factual accuracy, just as the ASA enforces accuracy in advertising?
    Mr. Brooke: The subject is one in which the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen and long interest. There is agreement among observers that the improvement in the work of the PCC regarding accuracy and the speed of its response to complaints has been notable in the past two years. Much of the attention centres on the privacy cases. The important thing is to ensure that we do not produce a machinery that is more cumbersome than what we are seeking to improve. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continuing interest in the matter.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that a policy of enforcing decisions is not the right way round, because it suggests some kind of prior restraint, which should be avoided? I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is desirable that the press should have roughly the same

    671
    freedoms as Back Benchers, who make misstatements and who may occasionally be awkward, but who are an essential part of democracy.
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has given an extremely good account of himself not only in that question, but on many previous occasions. I agree with him, without wishing to make absolutely precise the analogy between himself and the national press, that that role is a useful one to have played in our society.

    Royal Palaces
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current total of public money paid to support and maintain royal palaces.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The estimated cost in the current financial year for the occupied and historic royal palaces is £28.4 million.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister seen the estimate that suggests that if the royal palaces were put to full commercial use they could yield an income of £100 million a year? In these hard times of cuts in the meagre incomes of pensioners, the sick, the unemployed and the homeless, why is it necessary to loot the public purse of that huge sum of money in order to keep five palaces going to ensure that one single family can live in extravagant luxury?
    Mr. Sproat: I disagree with just about everything that the hon. Gentleman has implied. I have not seen the story to which he referred, but, as for improving the contribution to the upkeep of the palaces, I can tell him that as a result of the opening of Buckingham palace earlier this year and the policy of charging for entrance to Windsor, about 70 per cent. of the money needed for Windsor will be generated.
    Mr. Jessel: As £28 million works out at about 50p per head of population per year is not that extremely good value for upholding that vital part of Britain's heritage? The royal family and our traditions draw a large number of foreign visitors to our country and their spending on hotels, restaurants, internal travel and shops generates employment and a tax return to the Government. That represents very good value indeed.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is, as always, wise, lucid and persuasive.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is not it time in a modern democracy for one particular palace or home to be provided for the Head of State, the cost of which could be met by the public purse, while the rest of the palaces are either handed over to other public agencies to promote tourism or made the sole financial responsibility of the wider royal family, who should not be subsidised by the ordinary taxpayer?
    Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree with that.

    Science Museum
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had about the presentation of exhibits at the science museum; what will be the total expenditure on capital projects during the forthcoming financial year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: Under the National Heritage Act 1983, those are matters for the board of trustees of the national museum of science and industry. However, the allocations that I announced on 30 November include an additional sum of more than £2 million over the next two years to the museum for a major capital project at York.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the staff of the national museum of science and industry will be fully involved in discussions about the future structure of the museum, that there will be a period of stability and that the museum will continue to make all its collection available to the public?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend will know that all the redundancies have now been achieved voluntarily. My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter over the past few months on behalf of his constituents and I congratulate him on that assiduousness and give him the assurance that he seeks.

    Radio Gloucestershire
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had recently with representatives of the BBC to ensure the improved reception of Radio Gloucestershire in the Cotswolds.
    Mr. Sproat: Officials in my Department have discussed local radio reception difficulties with the BBC. I understand that the BBC has put forward proposals to improve reception in a number of areas, including one part of Gloucestershire, and it is continuing to consider the options for the Cotswolds area.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties that my constituents in the Cotswolds have in receiving Radio Gloucestershire. Will he ensure that officials from the Radio Authority hold discussions with the BBC so that the problem can be overcome? I gather that it is a difficult, technical problem of fewer FM frequencies against the BBC providing more low-power transmitters. Whatever the eventual solution, will he encourage discussions so that my constituents do not continue to be disadvantaged by the problem?
    Mr. Sproat: I am well aware of the considerable disadvantages under which some of my hon. Friend's constituents labour. I will do everything that I can that is proper for my Department to ease those problems.

    Media (Violence)
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he intends to take to restrict the exposure of children to violence in the media.
    Mr. Brooke: The regulatory authorities have acted to tighten the guidelines on violence which broadcasters must follow. They have my full support and I am especially pleased that the Independent Television Commission has called for a reduction in violence and is committed to monitoring whether that reduction happens.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that there can be no question but that the imagery portrayed on television affects behaviour? If that were not the case, British business would be wasting £2.5 billion in advertising on television each year. Does he agree that

    673
    although the first responsibility for censorship to protect children from scenes of excessive violence must rest with the parents, there is also a role for the Government to play in tightening the existing regulation, especially in the areas of satellite, cable and video?
    Mr. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In terms of the causal link to which he alluded when referring to the effectiveness of advertising, I have read that advertisers are confident that advertising has an effect, but never quite confident which part of that advertising has the effect, which would, on the whole, seem to endorse research done over the years that has not found a conclusive link. However, I should be the first to agree with my hon. Friend that common sense suggests that such a link must exist.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the area of video, has intimated that there will be new measures to address that in the criminal justice Bill. It is an issue in which the Government continue to take a keen interest, both in my Department and the Home Office.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State consider some of the satellite pictures of bull fighting in Spain that are now received in homes here? That would be illegal in this country under other legislation and it seems appalling that the slaughter of those creatures can be seen freely on satellite television. Will he consider the matter and propose some action?
    Mr. Brooke: I was not aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, but it is something about which I shall make some inquiries.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that BSkyB has a responsible attitude towards the broadcasting of films on television and that it strictly applies the codes for the 16 to 18-year-olds used for the cinema? Will he agree that the causal link to which he referred in answer to an earlier question applies not only to fictional broadcasting but to the terrible images that are shown on television news? Much research has shown that television news has a greater influence on the young than violence shown in films or other fictional programmes.
    Mr. Brooke: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. As he knows, the Independent Television Commission has asked BSkyB, and BSkyB has agreed, to look carefully at the evening scheduling on its film channels. As for my hon. Friend's specific question, which has temporarily slipped my mind—will my hon. Friend give me a single clue?
    Mr. Fabricant: News.
    Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful; it was the switch in subject which was responsible for my forgetfulness. If my hon. Friend reads the report which the Broadcasting Standards Council published last week, he will find that, although two thirds of viewers believe that there is too much violence on television, more than half believe that the violence seen in news programmes is more justifiable than other violence on television.

    Theatres (Funding)
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from regional theatres regarding the proposed cuts in funding.
    Mr. Brooke: I have received a large number of representations both from and about regional theatres over the past few months.
    Ms Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that several of those representations must have come from those who benefit from the performances of our regional theatres, which are expressing grave disquiet at the possibility that their theatres will disappear? If we wish to protect our children from video violence and video nasties, surely one of the strongest safeguards is to encourage children to go to live theatre. That cannot be possible if the proposed swingeing cuts are made in what is, in effect, the nursery of not only our creative artists but our audiences of the future.
    Mr. Brooke: I agree with the hon. Lady about the role that regional theatre fulfils, the apprenticeship which it provides for actors and actresses, enabling them to advance, and the value that that provides. She will be encouraged by the statistics over the past six years, which show that twice as many theatres have opened as have closed; so the news is not altogether bad.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a question of apprenticeship? Such theatres provide a platform for many touring companies, such as Touring Glyndebourne and the Welsh National Opera, which bring a high degree of excellence to many of our provincial centres. Does he further accept that we are talking about a very small amount of money? Will he please go back to his Treasury colleagues and try to get a little more?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Arts Council's decisions about the regional theatres were taken against its budget at that time. It made certain determinations. However, I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) about the importance of that art form.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Did not the Arts Council lose a great deal of public confidence by acting the fool over the regional theatres earlier this year? Are not the Government now acting like a knave by introducing cuts that might produce the same deleterious effect?
    Mr. Brooke: The chairman of the Arts Council referred to that issue when he spoke recently about the Arts Council's annual results. As for funding for the Arts Council, I was delighted that I was able to make more money available this year than had been stated. I acknowledge that the amount had been cut in the previous year.
    Sir Donald Thompson: I recognise that professional theatre is all-important, but will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Foundation for Sport and the Arts on the grant that it recently made to many theatres, including one in my constituency in Todmorden where, on Saturday night, I was pleased and delighted to see a wonderful performance of the "The Wizard of Oz"?
    Mr. Brooke: I am absolutely delighted to join my hon. Friend, not only in his congratulations but in his enthusiasm.

    Theatre Funding, Greater Manchester
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the threat of funding cuts to theatres in Greater Manchester.
    Mr. Sproat: I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about theatres in Greater Manchester.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Minister agree that, in the very year when Manchester will be designated the city of drama, it is ridiculous that the Library theatre and others in the area should be under threat? Does he agree that that is partly due to the fact that the Secretary of State did not secure the necessary funding in the public expenditure round and that local authorities have been forced to make cuts in their grants, because of the lack of money from the Government?
    Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree. The Library and the Forum theatres in Manchester are supported by the local authority, which meets this week to decide their future. I very much hope that it will decide to continue its support for those theatres.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Is not the recent fiasco of Arts Council funding for regional theatres in Manchester and elsewhere futher evidence that the council is simply losing its grip? This afternoon, the House has already addressed the funding of the London orchestras, which concerns me greatly, as my hon. Friend knows.
    Since the Arts Council seems to have lost its grip on its responsibility for the artistic and cultural life of this country, will Ministers consider taking a fresh grip on the Arts Council by re-examining the arm's-length relationship?
    Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend has a tight grip on the Arts Council and has managed to give it an extra £800,000 that it did not expect to get—[Interruption.] That is 1.7 per cent., which is not much in these circumstances. My hon. Friend will know that the London orchestras are being discussed by the Arts Council this week.
    On provincial theatres, Lord Palumbo agreed that perhaps that matter could have been better handled by the Arts Council. Perhaps I might use this occasion to say that that is always something that the Arts Council does on the arm's-length principle, and it is not a matter for the Department of National Heritage to decide.

    Tourism
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding deregulation and tourism; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: I have received a great many representations on this subject from the national and regional tourist boards, from trade and professional associations and from individual business men and women in the tourism and
    676
    leisure sectors. I reported my initial findings to the House on 27 July and I am taking up with ministerial colleagues the issues raised.
    Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend will understand the importance of tourism to the borough of Poole. Does he also understand the vital necessity of withdrawing the regulations that are impeding progress and, frankly, are unnecessary? I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the additional support that they are giving to the tourist industry.
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for the kind remark at the end of his question. I am indeed aware of the importance of tourism to Poole, and he may be interested to know that last week I met a delegation from the British Resorts Association, which is forging a new and helpful relationship with the Department. Of course, we are acutely aware that tourism is one of the largest industries in this country and that it has perhaps not always been given the attention that it should have been, but it will be given it in future.

    London Orchestras
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make additional funds available to maintain the current number of London orchestras.
    Mr. Brooke: I recently announced the level of grant in aid to the Arts Council for 1994–95, which includes an increase of £800,000 in the previously planned figure for next year. Within that global total, it is for the Arts Council to determine its artistic policies and priorities and the allocation of funds to individual arts organisations. Decisions on the funding for the London orchestras are, therefore, a matter for the Arts Council.
    Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State is a very urbane Pontius Pilate; none the less he is a Pontius Pilate. The selection of London orchestras has been an appallaing scandal and no other city would have handled it in such a way. It is incumbent on the Government to give the London arts scene the support that it requires to sustain five orchestras.
    Mr. Brooke: The House and the audience constituency must decide whether they want the arm's-length principle to be observed. The Arts Council's decisions, which have been subject to commentary, were absolutely within its right and purview. In that respect, it was a matter for the Arts Council to decide. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), the matter has not yet been concluded, as the Arts Council still has to make a decision.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Although I understand and support the arm's-length principle governing my right hon. Friend's relationship with the Arts Council, could he make it a condition of his overall grant to the council that it does not engage in the humiliating process to which London orchestras have been subjected in recent weeks? Orchestras that have illumined London's concert-going for decades have had to go through a Eurovision song contest to get funds for next year.
    Mr. Brooke: I will reiterate, as I did in answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that

    677
    it was a proper procedure for the Arts Council to follow in terms of its responsibilities and disposition of funds. My hon. Friend may be right if he surmises that the Arts Council has learnt some lessons from its experience.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the level of funding of the National Audit Office.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office's estimate for 1994-95 of £36.5 million was considered and approved by the Public Accounts Commission on 7 December. That is £0.8 million less than what was proposed in the corporate plan approved in July.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. The National Audit Office is one area of Government activity that should be increasing its expenditure to keep a check on the waste which I have identified, just by reading a range of newspapers, as amounting to some £9 billion. Is he aware, for example, that it is estimated that the £15 million increase in the telephone bills in Whitehall have resulted from calls to the 0898 number, which is what people telephone when they are desperate for information on the cricket scores?
    Is my right hon. Friend also aware that this year the Government have spent £154 million on leaflets, one of which was entitled "How to be a better dog owner"? It advises people to feed their pet regularly, give it its own sleeping basket, keep it warm and take it for walkies. Will the National Audit Office look into that kind of thing?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office is already busily engaged with its programme, but I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Dr. Howells: Will the Chairman acknowledge the fact that the National Audit Office plays a crucial role in ensuring that there is no slippage in Government administration towards what one can only call an Italian mode of government?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I do not know what instances the hon. Gentleman has in mind—
    Dr. Howells: The Welsh Development Agency.
    Sir Peter Hordern: That matter has been dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, which I am sure will want to consider it again. The National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General will have a continuing interest in the matter.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of Government agencies.
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what finance will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of Government agencies.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office budget of £36.5 billion for 1994–95 includes provisions both for financial audit of Government Departments, executive agencies and a wide range of other public sector bodies and for value-for-money investigations. The forward investigation programme of the National Audit Office is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Chairman's answer. Given the current debate on the subject, will he ask the National Audit Office urgently to look at the cost benefits of the Child Support Agency? Will he ask it quickly to evaluate whether all the money spent on the agency and its work is worth it, in terms of what is beeing recouped and from whom? He will be aware that the Government are reviewing the issue. It would be helpful if the National Audit Office produced a report to inform the Government's decision.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office does undertake the financial audit of the Child Support Agency. That includes an examination of the accuracy of maintenance assessments. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that, as part of the normal strategic planning and marketing process, developments at the agency are being monitored with a view to a possible value-for-money investigation.
    Ms Lynne: Will the National Audit Office examine the work of the Prescription Pricing Authority in the light of allegations that dispensing general practitioners have been overpaid value added tax?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Prescription Pricing Authority is a very small body, whose accounts are audited by the district audit service on behalf of the Audit Commission. The audited accounts form part of a summarised account that is reviewed by the National Audit Office before final certification by the Comptroller and Auditor General. No value-for-money work is planned, but if the hon. Lady would care to write either to me or direct to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the matter will be considered.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Refreshment Department
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is the accumulated surplus of the House of Commons Refreshment Department; what plans there are for its use; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): The accumulated surplus of the House of Commons Refreshment Department trading fund was £2.7 million at 1 April 1993. As mentioned in the 15th annual report of the House of Commons Commission, it is intended to use that surplus to help to cover the cost of the Refreshment Department's modernisation programme.
    Mr. Greenway: Could some of that modernisation extend to more home-made puddings in the Members' Cafeteria, instead of apple pie made by machine? Exactly

    679
    what are the refurbishment plans envisaged for that £2.7 million? There have been so many press rumours that it would help the House to know what is proposed.
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend should address the first half of his question to the Director of Catering Services or to the Chairman of the Catering Committee, and I shall ensure that he knows about it.
    On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we have not yet seen the report of the Catering Committee. When we do, we shall have to take a view of it—indeed, the whole House may have to take a view on it—but at the moment we cannot do so as the report has not yet been published.

    Parliament (Access)
    Mr. Miller: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what expenditure has been authorised to improve access to Parliament for people with sensory disabilities.
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what facilities are currently available for disabled visitors to the Palace of Westminster and to each of the parliamentary outbuildings; and what financial provision has been made to improve them.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Details of the facilities available for disabled visitors to parliament are set out in a leaflet that is available from the Serjeant at Arms and which has been incorporated into the Members' handbook. A sum of £250,000 is included in the proposed programme of works for 1994–95 to improve those facilities. The Accommodation and Works Committee is conducting a comprehensive review of the issue, and funding in future years will be determined once the Committee's conclusions are known.
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I direct his attention to the needs of those with hearing difficulties. Within the programme to which he referred, what action is intended to take account of the six action points in the paper, which I know he has received, from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf?
    Mr. Beith: That paper has gone to the Accommodation and Works Committee, which I understand is consulting following a substantial report from the specialist architect, which it is also considering and which will form the basis of a report in due course.
    Mr. Gapes: What steps are being taken to make it easier for those who have difficulty walking to pass through a number of the entrances and exits in this building —for example, the Norman Shaw building and the main St. Stephen's entrance? I know just from pushing my baby daughter in a pram how difficult it is to move around this building. Those with difficulty walking must have a terrible time. What steps are being taken to deal with that?
    Mr. Beith: That is the sort of work which, among other things, we hope the £250,000 will cover. Because of the period when the building was built, some of the entrances are especially difficult to adapt. However, hon. Members
    680
    will notice that in the newer buildings, in particular, adequate provision has been made from the start and many adaptations are taking place or are planned.

    Parliamentary Works Budget
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee if he will make a statement on the future of the parliamentary works budget.
    Mr. Channon: Since the transfer to the House in April 1992 of the vote for works services, a 10-year rolling programme of work has been developed in consultation with the Treasury. That will provide the basis for future works budgets and takes account of the requirements of the House, such as the provision of office accommodation for Members and the need to remedy the backlog of maintenance on the Palace and outbuildings.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when so many of our constituents are feeling the pinch and lack the spare cash to do up their homes, Parliament must be doubly careful to set an example of frugality when doing up its premises?
    Although the decoration and refurbishment of 1 Parliament street are splendid, is my right hon. Friend aware that they cost about £36 million? The current refurbishment of 7 Millbank, although most desirable, represents a level of luxury of which some of us are almost ashamed. When I walk through the corridors of that building, I count the number of unnecessary light bulbs and encounter doors made of beautiful beech that are so heavy and large that a woman my size can barely shove them open—and I certainly will not be able to do so in a few years' time. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we should think carefully when deciding the standards of accommodation for Members?
    Mr. Channon: I am sure that my hon. Friend underestimates her physical and mental powers, but in general I agree with the important points that she makes. I expect that my hon. Friend realises that hundreds of people work at 7 Millbank, so it was inevitably an expensive project. She is right to say that such matters are now carefully scrutinised. Reasonable recommendations are often received from domestic committees, and work often has to be done on grounds of safety and, above all, of fire protection. My hon. Friend's point is well taken and I assure her that we will examine all budgets with great care.
    Mr. Flynn: Could not part of the budget be used to solve a problem that was identified at a recent seminar for civil servants with severe disabilities? As it is impossible for such civil servants to enter the Chamber in a wheelchair, there is a bar on their promotion, because they cannot occupy the invisible Box in the corner.
    Mr. Channon: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) dealt with the issue of disability a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will see that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Television Franchises
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what arrangements are in place to ensure that companies taking over regional television franchises fulfil the under takings in respect of meeting local and regional needs given by their predecessor.
    Mr. Brooke: The Independent Television Commission is responsible for enforcing the requirements on every regional licence holder to provide regional programmes. Those licence conditions apply regardless of changes of ownership.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Secretary of State will be well aware that many of the bids by companies that subsequently won franchises promised regional programmes and the creation of jobs within the regions in which those companies would operate. If Yorkshire Television's franchise, for example, were taken over by another company, that would obviously have a significant effect on the jobs in Yorkshire promised by that company when it originally sought its franchise. What will be done to ensure that regional employment is not lost as a result of the decision to allow the acquisition of franchises?
    Mr. Brooke: The licence holder remains the licence holder even if another company controls the licence following a takeover. In the case cited by the hon. Gentleman in the Tyne Tees area, the licence holder would continue to be answerable to the ITC for discharging the licence that it was granted.
    Mr. Lidington: Did not we hear the same scare stories from the Opposition when the present ITC regime was introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1990? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the commission has proved effective in making sure that companies observe their obligations and that there is no need to doubt that it will prove effective in future?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The ITC said that the transition to the new arrangements was undertaken more smoothly and with greater stability than previous transitions.
    Mr. Mandelson: In the light of the move by London Weekend Television to fend off Granada's predatory bid by jumping into bed with Yorkshire Television, is not the Secretary of State the least bit concerned that Tyne Tees Television could be a casualty in these shenanigans? Will he assure television viewers in the north-east that Tyne Tees Television's commercial viability and regional programme output will be entirely secure, whatever change in ownership takes place?
    Mr. Brooke: As to the regional discharge of licences, I gave the answer to the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) earlier. As we discussed in the House last week, the fact that Yorkshire Television controls Tyne Tees, and the consequences that that has in terms of a takeover, are factors which would weigh in the mind of anybody considering such a takeover.

    Arts Funding
    Mr. Sheldon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss funding.
    Mr. Brooke: I regularly meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Sheldon: In reply to an earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman said that the task of the Arts Council was to provide a stable framework. Does not he agree that the thing that is clear about the Arts Council is its unpredictability? Are not the regional theatres, and Manchester in particular, suffering from that unpredictability, as are the orchestras in London?
    Mr. Brooke: The Arts Council has the overall responsibility for the allocation of funds to various art forms and, when the decision is taken about which art forms, to particular institutions. It cannot be the case that those proportions are always set in concrete. The Arts Council made a decision at its recent meeting at Woodstock to allocate a larger proportion of funds in certain areas and a smaller one in other areas.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Prime Minister's Question Time
    Ms Jowell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the order and method of Prime Minister's Question Time.
    The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The only representation I have received has been from the Procedure Committee in its report into parliamentary questions—House of Commons No. 687, Session 1992-93. Its recommendation was:
    "On balance, we do not recommend any changes designed to alter the present balance between open and closed questions to the Prime Minister."
    The Government accepted that view.
    Ms Jowell: Given that "Erskine May" states that the purpose of a parliamentary question is to seek information or to press for action, what steps does the Lord President propose to take to prevent time-wasting at Prime Minister's Question Time by hon. Members who are seeking neither to obtain information nor to press for action but simply to show loyalty to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee was not able to be here, but I will draw his attention to the hon. Lady's remarks. If she gives me the undertaking that no Opposition Member will seek to make political points during Prime Minister's Question Time, I might consider her request.

    Oral Questions
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to amend the system for the tabling of oral questions.
    Mr. Newton: I have no plans to alter the system for the tabling of oral questions.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the difficulties that some hon. Members have in tabling oral questions for a Monday due to their constituency engagements? Will he suggest to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that those hon. Members be permitted to table oral questions for a Monday on the preceding Thursday? Failing that, will my right hon. Friend suggest to him that oral questions be taken until 6 o'clock on Monday?
    Mr. Newton: There has been some consideration of that matter, and I refer my hon. Friend to the further report of the Procedure Committee, following the Government's response. Of course, I will draw the remarks of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Lord President aware that there is still concern on both sides of the House about the implications of the workings of agencies, particularly the Benefits Agency, for the tabling of questions and whether replies are offered? All too often, hon. Members who seek to table questions to the relevant Secretaries of State find that answers cannot be obtained. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the matter?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady will know that some changes have been made in the way in which those matters are dealt with—for example, to ensure that replies from chief executives appear in an appropriate way for hon. Members to be aware of them. There are no further plans to change the arrangements at the moment. However, I would not reject out of hand what the right hon. Lady has said.

    Sitting Days
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many days the House will have met during 1993.
    Mr. Newton: On the basis of the House's agreement to rise for the Christmas recess on 17 December, there will have been 165 sitting days in 1993. Allowing for weekends and bank holidays, the number of non-sitting days will have been 88. Those figures compare with the averages for the calendar years since 1979, which are 166 sitting days and 88 non-sitting days respectively. If election years are excluded, those figures become 172 and 82 respectively.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there will be no consensus about changing the hours and sitting days so long as the Government treat the House with the contempt that they are showing this week? Does he realise that the manner in which the House is being treated with contempt will mean that there will be parliamentary warfare well into 1994 and that the responsibility for that lies entirely with the Government and the contemptible manner in which they are treating the business of the House on Tuesday and Wednesday?
    Mr. Newton: I do not, of course, accept the hon. Gentleman's comment about contempt, but no doubt we shall have opportunities to debate that tomorrow. However, quite apart from the averages that I have mentioned, there were two non-election years—1986 and 1991—within the past eight or nine years in which the figures were almost exactly the same. In 1991, the figures were exactly the same as those that I have just given for 1993. In view of the reference to the Jopling report, the following is a direct quote from that report:
    "Compared with the legislative bodies in other large democracies the House of Commons continues to sit for more days and for many more hours in a year than any other."
    As far as the great majority of the House is concerned, I make no apology for continuing to try to act within the spirit of the Jopling recommendations.

European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last weekend's European Council, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The task that we set ourselves at this Council was to set Europe on a course towards economic recovery and the creation of new jobs. In Britain, unemployment has been falling since January, but across the rest of the Community it has been rising. Indeed, since the Edinburgh Council met a year ago, 1.5 million extra people have become unemployed. At Brussels, and in the White Paper "Growth, Competitiveness, Employment", we considered how this could be reversed.
The conclusions of the Council on the White Paper show that member states are now determined to pursue realistic, practical and market-oriented policies to improve Europe's competitiveness. In Brussels, we agreed on the need for firm control of public spending and low inflation; open markets; deregulation; a more decentralised Europe; flexibility in labour markets and reductions in social costs and the decisive role of private investment in generating economic growth.
These conclusions are very welcome. They reflect policies that we have advocated at Council upon Council. However, a number of my fellow Heads of Government, and the European Commission itself, would have found many of those conclusions unthinkable only a few years ago. Outdated policies, involving extra burdens on business and extra borrowing to fund spending by the European Commission, were firmly rejected.
Drawing on elements of the White Paper, the European Council agreed a common framework within which member states will consider measures aimed at improving the supply side performance of our economies. The emphasis on improved training and education, measures to reduce the costs of taking on new employees, deregulation at Community and national level, all closely echoed the themes of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget last month.
I am glad to report to the House that the conclusions include the British proposal that Community and national legislation should be subjected to a test—an audit—of its effects on jobs. The European Council rejected the intrusive, damaging and defeatist notion of compulsory work sharing.
The European Council reaffirmed the conclusions that it reached at Edinburgh on the speedy completion of trans-European networks—infrastructure projects designed to improve the workings of the single market—supported by finance from the European investment bank. I am glad to say that the Council recognised the decisive role to be played by private investors in financing trans-European networks. Additional loans would only even be considered if there was evidence that priority projects were blocked for lack of finance. European Finance Ministers have been asked to examine financing in more detail with the help of the European investment bank.
The Council did not endorse the last-minute proposals brought forward for extra financing through so-called "Union bonds" issued by the Community.
686
There was firm agreement on the need to ensure that measures taken at Community level should not undermine domestic efforts by national Governments to reduce their own borrowing.
A theme running through all our discussions was the need for a successful conclusion of the GATT round of trade talks. That would be by far the most important boost to international confidence and job creation. Independent estimates suggest that the economies of European countries would be the biggest single gainers from the Uruguay round. Negotiations between the Community and the United States were continuing while the Council met. Sir Leon Brittan, the Council negotiator, is reporting to the Foreign Affairs Council this afternoon.
We always knew that the end game of the negotiations would be difficult. They are still going on. It is a hugely ambitious round of negotiations, covering $4.5 trillion of international trade. Success is a remarkable prize.
The Council discussed the internal implications of the GATT negotiations. The Council noted the Commission's assessment that the reformed common agricultural policy is compatible with the new commitments which would result from an agreement in GATT. Some delegations asked what the position would be if that judgment were to prove wrong. In debate on that, the Council agreed—crucially—that, if any additional measures were to prove necessary, they would not breach the financial ceilings agreed by the Edinburgh European Council.
The European Council also endorsed an excellent work programme drawn up by Home Affairs and Justice Ministers. In particular, it agreed to an Anglo-German proposal that the EUROPOL drugs unit should be set up forthwith and that the EUROPOL convention should be completed by October next year. Community action in this matter has a valuable contribution to make in the international fight against organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
That particular decision illustrates a new appreciation in the Community of a distinction that we have long sought to make clear: between actions sensibly conducted in co-operation with our European partners, and policies which are for national Governments to decide. The principle of subsidiarity is now producing concrete results.
In Brussels, we secured agreement to repeal, withdraw or amend 17 directives out of a list of 24 put to the Commission jointly by the British and French Governments. Other Governments will now, I believe, follow suit. In particular, the German Government are pressing their own proposals to extend subsidiarity further. The necessary procedures are in place to ensure that that process continues. We are determined to maintain high standards, but we are determined, too, to simplify European legislation to make it less intrusive and to leave more room for national choice.
The European Council also discussed foreign policy issues. Foreign Ministers discussed with Lord Owen the position in former Yugoslavia. Although there has been some improvement in the delivery of humanitarian aid, obstacles to a political settlement in Bosnia remain. In a further effort towards peace, Foreign Ministers invited the parties to the conflict to a meeting in Brussels on 22 December. As the winter sets in and the suffering of the population intensifies, we must continue to seek a political settlement, however difficult this will be.
We also discussed the French Prime Minister's initiative for a pact on stability which aims to promote

687
stability and regional co-operation in central and eastern Europe. A launch conference will be held in Paris in the spring of next year.
I also had a useful meeting with President Yeltsin, who subsequently met the European Heads of State and Government.
At the summit, the Heads of Government agreed that the only road to economic recovery is the one upon which the Government are already embarked, with a year and a half of rising output already achieved. Low inflation, low interest rates, a reduction in industry's burdens and a lifting of the dead hand of regulation are the agreed signposts to investment and jobs. Open markets bring new opportunities to exporters; free markets encourage enterprise and prosperity. Europe still has a long way to go, but we on this side of the House will continue to point it in the right direction.
Mr. John Smith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
At the outset, let me endorse the importance which the right hon Gentleman attached to a successful outcome of the GATT talks. We look forward to a full statement later in the week on the full implications for Britain of a final agreement. A successful GATT round is vital for growth and employment in the industrialised countries, and especially for our service industries. It is no less important to less developed countries in creating the prospect of increased trade for them.
As for the impact of the GATT agreement on agriculture in Europe, if it is the case that no more money can be spent on the common agricultural policy than that already agreed, does that mean that if some agricultural producers are to be compensated, some other aspects of the Community's budget will have to be reduced?
On the question of relations with Ireland, the Prime Minister made no reference to his discussions with the Taoiseach at Brussels. Can he say whether he is likely to make a statement on the subject before the House rises for the Christmas recess?
We welcome the commitment of the European Community to the substantial reduction of unemployment by the end of the century. We also welcome the strong emphasis on education and training on a Community-wide basis and the commitment to what is described in the communiqué as
"economic and social progress, a high level of social protection and continuous improvement in the quality of life".
Can the Prime Minister explain how reducing unemployment benefit from 12 months to six months, and persistently under-investing in training, squares with those objectives which are said to be agreed in the Community?
On the subject of indirect labour costs, can the right hon. Gentleman explain how he justifies transferring sick pay costs of £750 million from the Government to employers in the Bill that he is seeking to railroad through the House without proper debate on Thursday?
The Prime Minister quoted the agreement on the need for the speedy completion of trans-European transport networks. If there is no shortage of funds for those purposes, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims, why have so many delays occurred on major transport projects in Britain? Why is there still no opening date for the channel tunnel rail link? Does the Prime Minister not see
688
the possibility of using extra borrowing capability at the European level to help to finance a project without which we will not have a successful rail connection with the rest of the single market?
On the question of foreign policy, can the Prime Minister say whether the discussions at the European Council will have a direct impact on the situation in Bosnia? Will more humanitarian aid be provided? Will the airlift to Sarajevo be stepped up? Will more troops be provided, as Mr. Stoltenberg has requested? Will brutality be more effectively confronted—for example, by the increased use of sanctions? If none of those things is to happen, what, if anything, of importance was decided at the European Council?
Finally, can the Prime Minister explain the Government's attitude to the extra borrowing capability in view of the severely conflicting noises which we heard before, during and after the Brussels summit? Before the right hon. Gentleman went to the Brussels summit, we heard how perverse the idea was that an extra 8 billion ecu of borrowing capability should be considered, but from the communiqué we now understand that the idea is under active consideration. If projects make sense, what is so wrong about borrowing for genuine investment in vital infrastructure projects which will improve our economy, create jobs, stimulate growth and competitiveness, and put our public finances in proper order in the medium term?
The Prime Minister: I will endeavour to respond to the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that refer to our discussions over the weekend, and also to those comments that he made that had no relative involvement whatever in the discussions over the weekend.
Taking the last point first—on extra borrowing and what was said before we went there—before we went to the European Council, the point was made quite clearly that we saw no case for two particular aspects of the White Paper: first, the artificial targets on job creation, which are clearly ludicrous and unobtainable and were readily dropped by everybody when they looked at the White Paper; secondly, the question whether there should be special bonds issued by the Commission to underpin a large amount of extra borrowing. That, too, was rejected by everyone—conservative Governments and socialist Governments alike—and seems to be favoured only by the Labour Opposition in this country.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the importance of GATT agreement. As he rightly said, it is, of course, especially important for underdeveloped countries because the importance to them of opening up markets is likely to be even more valuable than the present sum total of world aid at present provided to them. They will be significant gainers if we are successful in delivering a GATT round during the course of this week.
On agriculture, it was decided that, in the event that the CAP turns out not to be compatible with the GATT—and it is the Commission's view that it is compatible—there would be no more money over and above that that was agreed in the financial perspectives at Edinburgh some time ago. There are other alternatives. It could mean a redistribution of resources within the budget, price cuts or other options. There is a range of options, none of which has yet been addressed. The point of principle that there is no extra money has been addressed and determined.
Ireland was not discussed at the Council, but it was discussed between the Taoiseach and me in the sidelines of

689
the Council. We are both seeking a joint declaration, as the House is aware. It is important that it is a balanced declaration. I am more concerned with getting the declaration right than necessarily with getting it in a particularly short time.
As a result of the meeting that I had with the Taoiseach on Saturday, more work is currently in hand. I hope to speak to him by telephone later today, perhaps tomorrow morning. That is as yet undecided. At that stage, we will decide how and when we will be able to proceed. I am not yet in a position to say to the House whether that will lead to a statement before the House rises.
On unemployment, the whole purpose of the White Paper was to see what action could be taken in individual countries and across the Community collectively to improve the possibility of creating fresh jobs for the future. That was the whole thrust of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about unemployment benefit, which was not a matter raised. I might equally say to him that a minimum wage, so beloved of other countries, has led, in one country at least, to youth unemployment of 23 per cent., largely in a direct relationship to that policy.
On sick pay, the reductions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in terms of leaving an obligation on employers have been more than compensated for by parallel reductions in national insurance contributions to the extent that the overall reduction in national insurance contributions will cost the Revenue rather more than sick pay will cost employers.
The principal reason for the delay in the trans-European networks has been that no credible projects have yet been brought forward either by Governments or by the private sector across the European Community as a whole.
So far as the channel tunnel is concerned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably understands as well as I do that a principal problem there has been the question of planning delays and a necessity to ensure that people are properly consulted.
On foreign policy and Bosnia, I answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question in the statement that I made when I referred to the further meeting that will be held on 22 December. We are keen to see Tuzla airport opened. We are keen to ensure that the delivery of aid still continues. The view among many Foreign Ministers—though this was not discussed at a Heads of Government level—is that there is not a great deal of extra scope at present for more sanctions. What is desirable is to ensure that all the sanctions that exist are rigorously enforced.
Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, and explain to the Leader of the Opposition, that more borrowing by the Community now, which will fall on the credit of the member states just at a time when we are trying to reduce our borrowing and our interest rates, would be absurd and perverse? My right hon. Friend is wholly right to resist it.
As to subsidiarity, is not the list of 16 or 17 measures from which the Community will desist a good start but rather modest considering that the United Kingdom put forward 71 measures and other countries must have put forward many others? Therefore, will he give us some encouragement that the ideas of the House and other national Parliaments and Governments will be allowed to go forward vigorously, thereby leading to a far greater list
690
of proposals and measures that should be unravelled at Community level and repatriated or returned to the nation states?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm my right hon. Friend's latter point. The report from the Commission was welcome. In practice it recommends the repeal of about 25 per cent. of existing European Community legislation. Some of that will be repealed completely and some will be replaced by fewer and simpler measures. That is still to be determined. The Council has asked the Commission to bring forward early proposals to put that report into effect. More subsidiarity lists will be coming forward. A substantial list from the Germans is under consideration. We shall have further proposals to make, as will France and other countries. It is agreed that that is the commencement of a process and that further subsidiarity lists will be presented to the Council for approval.
My hon. Friend is entirely right in his first point about borrowing. For sound economic reasons, right the way across Europe, Governments are seeking to reduce borrowing and fiscal deficits. It makes no sense for individual nation states across Europe to reduce their borrowing while increasing borrowing collectively through the European Community.
Sir David Steel: In view of the heavy emphasis in his statement on free market rhetoric—an emphasis that was also present in the British press briefings—will the Prime Minister confirm that the Council of Ministers did not throw out the baby with the bath water and that there is a proper element of public investment on infrastructure programmes designed to help push unemployment down? He somehow forgot to mention that.
Secondly, as to the effect of GATT on the CAP, given that there has been so much publicity about the needs of farmers in France and eastern Germany, is the Prime Minister fully aware of the needs of farmers in Scotland, who are facing imposed set-aside at an unacceptable level? Will he make sure that that issue is sorted out at the same time?
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, there was no agreement at the summit to increase public expenditure. There is some public expenditure, which was previously agreed and in the structural and cohesion programmes, but that is long-established public expenditure agreed some time ago as justifiable. What is being added to that is the extra resources that we think will come through the European Investment Bank and the private sector to top up the money needed for trans-European networks. Only if those resources are unavailable will there be any further examination of whether money might be needed to complete desirable projects. No one is in any doubt that the resources are likely to be forthcoming from the private sector.
On agriculture, I set out the position some time ago. I am aware of the problems of Scotland and those of other parts of the United Kingdom. However, 60 per cent. of all Community expenditure is on agriculture. That cannot be a sustainable position over the long term, and we must look to reduce it, both proportionately and absolutely, as speedily as possible.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the subsidiarity report presented by President Delors not only, as he has just pointed out, holds out the prospect of repeal of 25 per cent. of Community legislation but, much more importantly, makes it clear that article 3b, as he and Chancellor Kohl negotiated it, is a substantial improvement over the position that pertained under the Single European Act? Does he further agree that we can now look to that, as in many other areas, for a new agenda for Europe, one much more in tune with the one for which he and the Conservative party have been fighting for many years?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is entirely right about the question of article 3b, which some Opposition Members much mocked. They will now discover, when they examine the list that comes forward and future lists, that, whilst they may have mocked it in the past, they will pay homage at its shrine in the future.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Prime Minister thinks that GATT will result in jobs being provided across Europe and in Britain, will he say how many jobs will be provided in Britain, and by how much the unemployment total will be reduced in two years' time if the GATT negotiations are concluded satisfactorily?
The Prime Minister: After a reasonable number of years. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him how many I think it is, but it will not be too many years. We estimate around 400,000 jobs. I cannot be precise as to how many of those will be created over the next two years. The hon. Gentleman set that time frame and I will endeavour to give him an answer, but GATT does not take effect for another year, so two years within GATT will be three years from now. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him a figure. The overall impact of the GATT deal, when fully implemented, over time will create around 400,000 jobs in this country.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the approval of the House be sought before Her Majesty's Government commit the country to any further weakening of the unanimity rule, or any change in the arrangements for qualified majority voting?
The Prime Minister: I am interested that my hon. Friend mentioned that point. In particular, I notice that the Liberal Democrats' policy, enunciated the other day, was not to change qualified majority voting but to end the veto that has thus far been a significant part of our policy in the European Community. The ending of the veto would apply to all issues, including own resources, foreign policy, asylum and immigration policy. That is the implication of the speech made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats just a few days ago.
As to qualified majority voting, I do not have any proposals to bring before the House. There may well be discussions ahead in the Community and, if there are, I will take those issues as and when they arise.
Mr. Giles Radice: After systematically rubbishing the Delors White Paper all last week, how come the Government agreed to it over the weekend?
The Prime Minister: Because we took out the bits that we rubbished.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I received the presidency conclusions at lunchtime today and they are not very clear. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give a clear undertaking that, as far as French agriculture is concerned, there is no question of using the reserve to exceed the guidelines, as it was used at Edinburgh, on the basis that it should not be considered as being within the guidelines? We lost 1 billion ecu at Edinburgh. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that that will not happen again? Will he protest to the President for putting out a statement called "the Presidency conclusions", which was as clear and precise as could be, that
"additional funding will be provided"
and ECOFIN has been asked today to
" enable the Commission to mobilise up to an additional 8 billion ecu"?
Is not this something that must be cleared up quickly in case of misunderstanding?
The Prime Minister: I am pleased to clear it up. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on the Opposition Front Bench has been gabbling about this for the past few minutes. It will be mobilised by the private sector through the European investment bank, not through artificial loans in the Community budget. As to the reserve, my hon. Friend may or may not be pleased to know that for the immediate years ahead there is no reserve in the Community.
Mr. Peter Shore: Although I welcome the new stress on the dangerous levels of unemployment in Europe, and also welcome the recognition that a successful GATT round, increased infrastructure expenditure and wage moderation are all necessary to that end, is it not a matter of regret that the Heads of Government approved the guidelines under article 103 of the Maastricht treaty at the same time, which reaffirms both the timetable and the content of the second stage of economic and monetary union, with all that it means in cutting back on public expenditure and public borrowing? Does the Prime Minister think that it is possible to bring about an improvement in employment in Europe when, across Europe, all the member countries and states are dedicated to cutting public expenditure and public borrowing and conforming to a stable exchange rate in the exchange rate mechanism? How can that be possible?
The Prime Minister: It is not only possible; it is absolutely essential. If large fiscal deficits created jobs, there would be no unemployment right across Europe, because, in the past few years, European countries have dramatically increased their fiscal deficits at precisely the same moment as jobs have been lost. Unless we are able to reverse that trend, we will not put ourselves in a position where we are competitive enough to create permanent, long-lasting jobs. That is the policy to which each Government in the Community committed itself at the summit.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked about the guidelines under article 103 of the Maastricht treaty. The point about those guidelines is that they are non-binding recommendations; there is no obligation within them. They represent non-binding recommendations that would need to be met before any

693
country was able, if we were to get that far, to enter into stage 3 of economic and monetary union, to which, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we are not committed.
The substance of the guidelines is thoroughly sensible economic policy to make sure that we get down excessive borrowing and keep interest rates low. That is something that I believe almost every hon. Member would applaud. They are not artificial, over-prescriptive and country-specific guidelines. The whole essence of them is that member states remain responsible for setting their own economic policy in line with their own national needs and conditions.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Having just come from two homes that were bereaved — they happen to be European constituents of mine—where the fathers were brutally and hellishly murdered last night, one on the doorstep of his own home, may I put to the Prime Minister what was put to me by one of the mourners at those homes today: is the Prime Minister convinced that the IRA is really intending to cease its violence? Is he in full agreement with Mr. Reynolds when he tells the people of Northern Ireland that that is so?
Does not the Prime Minister realise that the price that the IRA will be asking for a cessation of its violence is too high a price to pay for the people of Northern Ireland? Could he say whether Mr. Reynolds is speaking for him when he says that they both have now already got 70 per cent. of an agreement?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House would wish to send its deepest sympathies to the families of the two men who were so callously and brutally murdered overnight. They add to a catalogue of crime by paramilitaries over recent years which is a blot on the history of Ireland. I hope that such crime can soon be brought to an end and that we see it no more.
What I am seeking to do in the discussions that I am having with the Irish Prime Minister is, of course, to try to find a circumstance that will end such murders in the future. I have never pretended to the House that that will be easy. I believe that it is a policy worth pursuing in the hope that we will be able to bring an end to the violence that has for so long bedevilled the lives of people in Northern Ireland.
I know the concerns that the hon. Gentleman sets out on behalf of his constituents in Northern Ireland and the concerns felt by many people across Northern Ireland. In my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister, I am acutely aware of those concerns in every moment of our negotiations.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Prime Minister's expression of concern. Of the trans-European routes, has imaginative planning been undertaken by our own nation to rejuvenate the west Britain ports and the links that would take goods across to Hull and thus open other avenues to Europe for our industry, which would build up our manufacturing sector? I am delighted that some progress has been made on GATT and I look forward to developments that will allow developing countries to improve.
Under the new concept of EUROPOL, will there be better co-operation between Community countries in the fight against not only organised crime but organised
694
terrorism, or will we have to rely on those outside the Community to give us help, as happened recently with the arms shipment from Poland?
The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that we will get far better co-operation through EUROPOL on a range of issues, including terrorism. The particular target of EUROPOL is drugs, which are intimately related to terrorism, as a great deal of terrorism appears to be financed by drugs and money laundering. It is directly to attack those problems that EUROPOL is so attractive to Heads of Government in the European Community.
I can only endorse what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said about the GATT round and its importance to the developing world. As I said earlier, it will provide a bigger boost to the incomes of the countries in the developing world than the sum total of aid provided by the western democracies and Japan combined, so it is clearly of immense importance to them.
All options are open on the question of the trans-European network and I shall draw the particular example to which the hon. Gentleman referred to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern about cross-border terrorism and the threat of cross-border crime? Will he use his influence to ensure that the EUROPOL drugs unit is set up in the timetable that he has outlined and that there is no delay?
The Prime Minister: I can reassure my hon. Friend that it is intended that the EUROPOL drugs unit will start work in the new year. Together with the anti-money laundering and trade-related measures, it should contribute to a comprehensive anti-drug strategy. We see EUROPOL as being at the centre of the analysis of European cross-border crime patterns and for information exchanges between national police agencies. It will initially concentrate on drugs crime and its implications, as I said to the hon. Member for Belfast, South, with the intention that it will complement and support existing police activities. I believe that over time it will make a significant contribution to stemming the rising tide of cross-border crime throughout Europe.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Prime Minister assume that the benefit of increased jobs from a successful outcome of GATT will accrue automatically? What steps are the Government taking to alert British industry to the special challenges that it will face?
The Prime Minister: The principal cause of job creation will be the general increased flow of trade and the increased demand that will result. That demand will be especially reflected in the manufacturing area, and the lower tariffs elsewhere will offer significant extra opportunities in the services sector. Probably some of that will occur almost automatically without rising levels of efficiency, but the hon. Gentleman is on to a good point by saying that business and commerce in the country will need to look for the opportunities that arise from GATT, to invest for them and seek to take them. The greater the extent to which they do that, the greater the extent that we shall see an increase in jobs.
Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most urgent task for the

695
Community in the next few days is to achieve a successful conclusion to the GATT round? Time is running out. What are the main sticking points that concern the Community, or are they largely resolved? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster for the world if concern for the French film industry allowed the talks to break down? What is the position of Her Majesty's Government and that of the European Council as a whole?
The Prime Minister: Although the present position is changing almost by the minute at the moment, Director General Sutherland achieved an agreement on most of the GATT rounds texts early this morning—about 98 per cent. of the way to the finishing line. There have been substantial negotiations between Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kantor, the American negotiator, who were meeting for most of the night and a good deal of today before Sir Leon Brittan had to return to Brussels to report to the Foreign Affairs Council. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is also attending that meeting.
The principal areas outstanding at the moment are difficulties on audio-visual matters—not the only outstanding matters, but the principal matters outstanding. Although the primary concerns rest with France, it is not the only European nation that has concerns over a range of audio-visual matters. I very much hope that we will be able to make progress on that as it would be a tragedy if the talks were to break down over a subject which, although important, is such a relatively narrow part of the whole GATT round at this stage. The United States has recognised the special nature of the audio-visual sector. The discussion on that has narrowed down to a relatively small number of detailed points.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Was any particular attention paid to the need for an effective Community-wide response to the political and economic refugees from central and eastern Europe who wish to take up permanent residence within the Community? It is important to have an effective economic and social strategy if we are to avoid racist attacks such as we have seen within sections of the Community.
The Prime Minister: We had some general discussion on collective asylum, which is operated co-operatively. The discussion was not specifically related to the countries that the hon. Lady mentioned, although we were all aware that there were areas of particular difficulties. The declaration on asylum commits members to common action on asylum. It is not a new proposition; it is an existing proposition. What it means in practice—so that no one misunderstands it—is that member states discuss together whether they can co-operate on asylum. They then decide intergovernmentally—not by Community decisions —whether they can take particular action. There was some discussion of that at the summit.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the commitment in the European communiqué to achieve economic growth by low inflation, low interest rates and tight control of public spending can be reconciled with the desire on the part of the European Commission to issue vast quantities of so-called Union bonds? How can it make sense, when every country in the Community is trying to reduce its deficit, to add to that
696
deficit by issuing such bonds? Would it not be far better to achieve success in the GATT negotiations than to pursue grandiose schemes of that nature?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. He states precisely the argument adopted by Britain and several other countries in our discussions at the summit over the weekend. It was for that and other reasons that a decision was taken not to proceed with the bonds to which my right hon. Friend refers.
Mr. John McAllion: The Prime Minister welcomed the moves made by the Council towards a more decentralised Europe. Does he accept that those moves are in line with the application of the principle of subsidiarity? If so, will he explain why the Government support the application of that principle by Europe in respect of the United Kingdom and, indeed, by the United Kingdom in respect of the Province of Northern Ireland, but not by the United Kingdom in respect of the nation of Scotland? Is it not the height of hypocrisy for a Government to mouth support for a principle at the Council of Ministers and then to apply that principle only when it is convenient for them to do so for party political purposes?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the definition of subsidiarity. The declaration on subsidiarity agreed by member states at the Birmingham European Council last year reiterated the point. It said:
"It is for each Member State to decide how its powers should be exercised domestically."
Devolution is a separate issue. The principle of subsidiarity does not apply to the internal arrangements in member states. Indeed, such an idea would fly in the face of the principle itself, which expresses—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen, it is just possible that he will learn something—not probable, but just possible. Such an idea would fly in the face of the principle, which explicitly prohibits unnecessary interference by the Community in national affairs.
Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the directives that are to be repealed include the bathing water directive and the drinking water directive? If that is the case, will he accept the thanks of all sensible people not only in the House but in the whole country? He and his Government have given the lead in bringing about the end of that nonsensical legislation, which is expensive and entirely unnecessary.
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. The drinking water directive and the bathing water directive both need to be completely overhauled. They are over-prescriptive and outdated scientifically.
Ms Hilary Armstrong: Shame.
Ms Joyce Quin: Shame.
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Ladies think that an outdated directive which is no longer accurate scientifically is appropriate to remain in law. It explains a great deal about the Opposition.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Prime Minister think that when he agrees any matter of principle at the European Council it is essential that this House has an appropriate debate? Can he tell the House whether we had a debate on the home and justice matters that he

697
agreed? Even if a convention is to be presented to the House at some due date, will that not mean that the royal prerogative used by the Government will replace the prerogative of an Act of Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I cannot conceive that any other nation state in the European Community spends remotely as much time, energy and effort on debating European matters, both before and after decisions, than this House. It is entirely proper that we should do so, but the concept that the Government should enable debate in the House on each and every issue, whether large or small, would effectively render any Government in power in no position to take decisions on behalf of the House or the country.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we are on target to complete the negotiations with nations belonging to the European Free Trade Association on enlarging the Community according to the timetable set out at the special European Council in October?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we have reaffirmed that target for negotiating the entry of EFTA states. It is a very tough target and, although we have re-endorsed it, I cannot say that I would be surprised if we slipped a little. But at the moment the intention is to meet the target set out, so that providing that those countries get internal consent from their Parliaments and where appropriate from the referenda that they must have, they will be able to enter the Community and be full members by 1995.
Mr. Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister referred to the French Prime Minister's stability pact. Is there not a danger that the Paris 39 conference next year will complicate European Union relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe? Surely a plethora of organisations already exists, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the North Atlantic Co-operation Council structures. Is it not ridiculous to establish another organisation, which does not seem to have a clear role or purpose that is distinctive from that of the others? Does he agree that it would be far better to take judicious decisions, for example, about human rights before one recognised Croatia? Does he accept that it is deplorable that there was no reference in the communiqué on the former Yugoslavia to putting pressure on the Croatian Government through economic sanctions?
The Prime Minister: On the latter question, the Community's views on each of the warring parties in Bosnia have frequently been stated at face-to-face meetings and I have no doubt that that will happen again on 22 December. No one involved in the present conflict in Bosnia can escape some share of the blame for what has occurred there in recent years.
On the stability pact, I can entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on some matters. The focus of the ideas in the pact will be on six central and east European states and on three Baltic states. I can agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need to involve the CSCE, and all the states participating in it will be invited to the conference to launch the stability pact. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that they all have a direct interest in that. Those countries not immediately involved in the pact will be observers, and representatives of other international organisations, such as NATO and the United Nations, will also be invited.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept my warm congratulations on getting, as he put it, "the rubbish" out of the Delors document and on converting it into a highly acceptable blueprint for the future of Europe, along the lines for which he and his colleagues have been working so long—notably, the reduction of burdens on industry, which will enable unemployment in this country to continue to fall and that fall to spread to European countries where unemployment is, sadly, still rising?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend; she is entirely right. We agreed strongly with much in the prescription for the action plan, not least because much of it was based on the contribution made by Community member states. We made our contribution, a significant part of which appears to be reflected in the White Paper. As I said earlier, we objected to certain elements of the White Paper and they are no longer in it. The action plan, which is a framework of policies for member states to pursue, is intended to deliver growth and jobs. I emphasise that it is for member states to pursue because that is an important point for the House. Some specific accompanying measures at Community level—deregulation, subsidiarity, and largely privately financed networks—will march alongside national measures. We also propose to monitor what happens to see the impact on employment prospects over a period of years.
Mr. Jim Marshall: In his meeting with President Yeltsin, did the Prime Minister make it clear that Russia will not have a right of veto over the future security arrangements of the countries of central and eastern Europe?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that President Yeltsin has entertained the ambition that he should have such a veto. President Yeltsin and I discussed the internal affairs within Russia, the prospects for the election, and the co-operation agreement which President Yeltsin seeks to negotiate with the European Union. We did not discuss the countries to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the Prime Minister agree that this afternoon's statement has illustrated to all fair-minded Members of Parliament in this Chamber the value of the United Kingdom being at the centre of European matters? Should not the few doubting Thomases who were not in favour of the Maastricht treaty now feel ashamed of themselves because their number is diminishing outside the House?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a golden tongue.
Ms Glenda Jackson: The Prime Minister referred to the European Free Trade Area countries as being "winners" following a successful round of GATT negotiations. Does he agree that there will be sizeable losers, not least the signatories of the Lomé convention, particularly sub-Saharan Africa? As, by 2002, the winnings are estimated to be approaching £120 billion, will he guarantee that he will argue, within the European Union, that a sizeable percentage of those enormous profits will be set aside to help countries that are currently in no position to help themselves?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is quite right to the extent that some of the provisions will hurt individual countries. Some of them will not be amenable to this country, the United States, Japan or Germany. All countries will find that some issues do not help them. However, because of the substantial anticipated growth in world trade—[Interruption.] It cannot be real until it has happened. Of course it is anticipated, but it is almost certain. The overall impact of the substantial anticipated growth in world trade is that nearly every country, including most sub-Saharan countries, will gain.
The Lomé convention provides special arrangements for a number of countries. Many of those are complex and, in the negotiations, there has been careful examination of relatively poor countries that do not have the political clout to protect themselves sufficiently to ensure that they are not unduly damaged. If it turned out that those countries were being damaged, particularly sub-Saharan Africa where we have a long-standing historical role, we would certainly seek to do what we could to protect them.
Mr. Bowen Wells: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has achieved, at this first European Council since the signature of the Maastricht treaty, the rejection of centralised borrowing by the Commission and strengthened subsidiarity considerably, does that signal that, at future Council meetings, we can look forward to more decentralisation and strengthening of nation states' co-operation within Europe?
The Prime Minister: I certainly expect more subsidiarity items to be agreed. Whether they will be agreed by next June or by next December, I cannot be certain, but more items under the subsidiarity principle will be remitted for national Governments to determine, which implies that there will be further repeals of Community legislation.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Last Thursday, the Leader of the House, when he stood in for the Prime Minister at Question Time, suggested that transparency and openness would be on the agenda at the Heads of Government meeting. In a democracy, is it not a fairly basic premise that people should know how their representatives vote? Was that matter discussed at that meeting? Will the Prime Minister ensure that information is supplied to the House on the way that our Ministers vote in Europe?
The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom was in the lead in discussing transparency and openness at the European Council. However, it is a principle that did not meet with universal favour among our colleagues. British Ministers are always available at the Dispatch Box to be questioned on how they voted on any issue.
Mr. James Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable that, in the deliberations on the financing of infrastructure and the trans-European networks, the maximum possible role is given to public and private sector co-operation? Does he further agree that that is a far more prudent course than the unhealthy and incredible obsession with borrowing exhibited in certain quarters, including by the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier about the trans-European networks, some
700
areas of public expenditure have long been agreed. The figures come from memory, but I believe that there is about 5 billion ecu in the structural and cohesion funds and about 7 billion ecu in the European investment fund. We are now looking for more from the latter fund. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that that is where the maximum amount of money should come from, but I also want the House to appreciate that there is some money in the structural and cohesion funds, which is effectively public money that will help to fund various items.
Mr. Barry Jones: It is said that the airbus project is an obstacle to GATT. What assurances can the Prime Minister give to me and to the 2,000 of my constituents at Broughton who make the wings of the airbus that he and the Government will fight our corner? Is he aware that British Aerospace is largely reliant on a successful airbus project? Will he assure us that he is fighting his corner and that President Clinton's election promises made in Seattle last year to Boeing airbus workers will not tip the scales in this important matter?
The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of this matter. Of course, we do not negotiate directly in the GATT round—the European Community is collectively represented by a negotiator, Sir Leon Brittan. Both the United States and the negotiator are aware of our special interests. We have made it clear to the Commission, and hence to Sir Leon as negotiator, that it is essential that aero engines and indirect support are covered, as in the current Chairman's text.
Mr. James Paice: I give a warm welcome to the first 17 directives that are to be reviewed or abandoned. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that is just a foretaste of things to come? In particular, can he say whether the TUPE regulations are included, as the press led us to believe over the weekend? I very much hope that we are witnessing a change in attitude by the Commission and that, having introduced this list, it will take a positive rather than negative look at future lists put forward by this Government or, indeed, that put forward by the Germans, to which my right hon. Friend referred. Should not that attitude also apply in future to any proposed directives?
The Prime Minister: I confirm that the acquired rights directive is among those to be repealed or examined. That incorporates the TUPE regulations to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware, in respect of his meeting with Mr. Reynolds, that the feeling remains that if the opportunity for peace is lost now it may be lost for a long time to come? Bearing in mind the vile murders over the weekend to which reference has already been made, as well as the ethnic cleansing of Catholic people last week, is it not all the more necessary to go the extra mile in seeking agreement with the Irish Republic? We all recognise of course that any such agreement, which is highly desirable, will not necessarily end terrorist killings on both sides.
The Prime Minister: It is important to try to take the opportunity to make the progress that it is possible to make at the moment. It is important that we reach a balanced agreement—one that can be seen to be fair by all the communities in Northern Ireland. That is not easy to

701
obtain; achieving a balanced agreement with the maximum chance of stopping violence is what is taking so long. I do not know how much longer it will take. We will not unduly delay, but it is worth while taking extra trouble to see if we can find a solution. I cannot promise that we will be able to do so.
If we cannot because genuine points of difference cannot be reconciled, we shall have to come to the House and say that it was not possible to reach agreement. I hope that that will not be the case. We are working hard to see whether agreement can be reached. If it is, we shall announce it as speedily as possible.
Mr. Graham Riddick: It is not clear now, bearing in mind comments made earlier from Conservative Benches, that one of the most significant aspects of the European Council was the beginning of the reversal of the European Commission's endless regulations and unnecessary interferences in matters that could be handled better at national level? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the important role that he played in that process. Is it not in stark contrast to that of Opposition parties, who want to pass more of Britain's sovereignty to Brussels?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Some matters are more appropriately handled at national rather than pan-national level. The essence of subsidiarity is that such matters should be done at a national level. There will always be areas where it is most appropriate for us to deal with matters collectively, and they will continue to be dealt with that way. However, I hope that we shall over time examine all existing legislation and determine which of it, in an excess of enthusiasm over the past 10 years or so, has gone to the European level but would have been better left at national level.

ESTIMATES DAY
  1ST ALLOTTED DAY
    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993-94
      Class II, Vote 2

        Peacekeeping Operations
        [Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1992-93 on The Expanding Role of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy (House of Commons Paper No. 235) and the Government Observations thereon (Cm 238) are relevant.
        The Fourth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1992-93 on United Kingdom Peacekeeping and Intervention Forces (House of Commons Paper No. 369) and the Sixth Special Report from the Committee of Session 1992-93, containing the Government's Observations thereon (House of Commons Paper No. 988) are also relevant.]
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That a supplementary sum not exceeding £98,121,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services. —(Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
        4.31 pm
        Mr. David Howell: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the vital questions of peacekeeping, the United Nations' contributions to peacekeeping efforts around the globe, the third report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, "The Expanding Rôle of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy", the Government's recent reply to that report, and the Government's reply to the recent request from the United Nation's Secretary-General for follow-up comments on peacekeeping operations—all of which documents are available.
        The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report published last June was a substantial piece of work and it is appropriate to offer words of thanks to those who contributed to it, in addition to the hard-working Committee. I refer in particular to Mr. David Travers of the university of Lancaster, specialist adviser to the Committee.
        The study of the United Nation's expanding role involved extensive travel, although not exactly to holiday spots. Members of the Committee visited Cambodia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Nairobi and Somalia, as well as the United Nations. I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for arranging for posts to give members of the Committee strong support. I mention in particular Sir David Hannay at the United Nations, Mr. Burns in Cambodia, Mr. Sparrow in Croatia, and Foreign Office officials who accompanied some visits where there was no diplomatic representation—such as Mr. George Busby, who travelled from Belgrade to accompany the Macedonia and Kosovo group, Mr. McCrudden from the post in Nairobi, and Mr. Geoff Cole, who travelled specially from London to join the Somalia group.

        703
        There was a considerable amount of support and help for the Committee, and I am grateful for that. The report was written and prepared while enormous changes were going on in the material that we were studying and in the nature of the United Nations operations around the planet.
        In May the Foreign Secretary stated that the United Nations had operations in four of six continents. At the beginning of 1992—some 23 months ago—there were 10,000 peacekeeping troops deployed around the globe. At the beginning of this year, that figure was 60,000—a vast increase. Indeed, if the Mozambique deployments during this year develop as it was thought that they would, the figure would rise to 100,000 peacekeeping troops deployed around the globe and administered and directed from the United Nations in New York and Geneva.
        The cost of those operations in 1992 was $3 billion, of which the United Kingdom contributed $90 million. The figure has risen rapidly during this year, with the latest figure showing that the United Kingdom contributed $60 million in the first three months of 1993 alone. I imagine that our contribution for the whole year will be far in excess of any that we have made in the past.
        While the Committee was writing the report, huge changes were occurring. Since then, even more rapid and striking changes have occurred in peacekeeping operations and in world opinion about those operations. I think in particular of the virtual flip in opinion in the United States about the new world order and about the role of the United Nations. I am afraid that that change has occurred since June and has been driven primarily by deep disappointment and bitterness over events in Mogadishu.
        The change has been driven in particular by the vivid photographs of the corpses of American service men being dragged by jeering mobs through the streets of Mogadishu. The photographs have had a fundamental effect on American opinion. More than any other communication, those horrific photographs have had the effect of turning opinion in the United States—and possibly elsewhere—against the high hopes of the United Nations of managing a new world order, and against a great deal of the work of the United Nations. The photographs also turned opinion against the idea of America playing a forward role as the world's policeman here, there and everywhere.
        The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Ghali, has gone on record as saying that the United Nations is giving up on the idea of peace enforcement—perhaps as a result of that incident. It is not giving up on peacekeeping, of course, but it is giving up the idea of military enforcement to bring about peace in the world's trouble spots. That has occurred in the past in the Korean war and to a considerable extent when Saddam Hussein was pushed back out of Kuwait. The Secretary-General's comments came after the production of the report and to that extent events have overtaken us.
        Meanwhile, since we visited the former Yugoslavia as part of the production of the report, there has been the grim recognition that the partition of Bosnia is inevitable. I think that it might have been more realistic to realise earlier that that was coming, and to raise hopes of keeping an independent Bosnia less high. Many lives have been lost in pursuing that unattainable objective.
        Meanwhile, again, Mr. Arkan terrorises Kosovo. Preventative deployments have taken place in Macedonia
        704
        and that is a good thing. Sanctions against Serbia are still in place, but they do not seem to be working effectively. As the House has heard, others are pressing for sanctions against Croatia, and that has also happened since the Committee produced the report.
        Also, Mr. Jan Eliason—who the Committee met when he was head of the department of humanitarian affairs—has resigned amid some doubts about the effectiveness of those new arrangements at the United Nations. The United Nations has sent a mission to Georgia, and there has been an international peacekeeping effort of a kind which, I confess, I know little about. The United Nations has also been involved in Haiti, where frigates—including one from this country—have been deployed. In the middle east, the PLO-Israeli deal is now threatened by extremists, while elsewhere in the middle east, Saddam Hussein continues to assert his claim to Kuwait, to question the implementation of United Nations resolutions and to attack the marsh Arabs. Indeed, he may have been implicated in using chemical weapons yet again.
        Although there may be many other developments, the final development that has occurred in respect of United Nations peacekeeping and its financing is the fact that the United Kingdom has unfortunately been pushed off the United Nations Budgetary Committee. When the Minister replies, I would like to know how serious that is. We tend to be pushed off every three years and then get back on again. However, this is a bad time not to be as near as we can to the centre of the administration of United Nations finances.
        All these developments have produced a change of mood since the summer and earlier in the year when it was thought that the United Nations would be the answer to every prayer. We have now gone to the opposite extreme: from excess euphoria, we have bounced over to excess gloom. It seems that the United Nations cannot achieve many of the things that people hoped it could after the end of the cold war.
        I believe that the gloom is overdone. When Dr. Boutros Ghali paid me the honour of asking my opinion on the matter, I told him that, despite all the criticism and the change of opinion in America, I thought that the gloom was overdone and that the United Nations remained a very powerful instrument which, reformed in the right way, can deliver a major contribution to world stability and the ending of violence and fragmentation around the globe.
        That was the spirit in which we wrote our report. On that basis, we set out a range of proposals for reforming the United Nations and its administration and methods for tackling international crises and for intervening. In our very long report, we argued that the United Nations cannot do everything. That was obvious. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) put it very graphically—and we used his words in paragraph 263 of the report—the United Nations cannot
        "wipe the tear from every eye."
        When deciding where it should intervene and where it should move on from humanitarian intervention to more heavyweight intervention, it is necessary to have criteria to decide upon what principles it should work. We set out some of those criteria in paragraph 267. We argued that they were the kind of questions that policy makers and national governments should ask before they decide to support a resolution to intervene in a particular trouble spot.

        705
        The Government have produced a reply to our lengthy report which is, if I may say so, a little diffuse and not made easier to comment on by the fact that there are no numbered paragraphs. However, from reading the report, I feel that the Government are not so enthusiastic about those criteria as the Committee was. At least the Government agree that there must be a mandate specified from the outset before intervention. That is very important indeed.
        We argue that one must go further than that and ensure that countries which commit themselves and their policies and resources must be aware from the start that the most timid initial humanitarian intervention can lead to a much more complicated military involvement. That is the point at which people who have committed themselves at the start must stay committed and not turn their backs and walk out leaving the United Nations floundering.
        It appears from the Government's response to our report and their response direct to the Secretary-General that they agree with our Committee that better command and control procedures at the United Nations are badly needed. They agree with our suggestions, and the suggestions of others, that a proper planning and operations staff at the United Nations is required. They agree with our thoughts about better communication and information flows for the United Nations.
        When the United Nations tries to command and control a force in the field, in a sense it operates blind because it does not have its own intelligence networks. We must consider what nation states can do, without undermining the national interests concerned, to provide better information and intelligence flows. I detected from the Government's reply that they recognise that that problem can be met.
        The Government also agree with the Committee that one should be sympathetic to the idea of stand-by forces for the United Nations. There is a sharp distinction between stand-by forces and standing forces. Stand-by forces would enable the United Nations to know what capabilities are available for certain needs and requirements around the world. The United Nations would be able to have an effective list of what was available.
        The Committee turned down very strongly the different idea of having standing forces waiting about to be deployed by the United Nations in certain missions. We believe that that idea was not sensible because missions vary vastly and one never knows exactly what kind of troops are required. The same argument applies to the idea of earmarking particular forces for United Nations work.
        In their reply, the Government do not appear to agree with our argument about sanctions. We argued that really limited sanctions tend to become more and more limited and are finally eroded to the point of uselessness. We believe that if sanctions are to be effective, they must be applied with vigour in a full-blown way from the start. We made that point in paragraph 130.
        It is a pity that there is reluctance to recognise that point. It would be very valuable to have sanctions working effectively on Serbia at the moment—although I am not sure whether it should be part of a deal in exchange for land. If they were working really effectively, they would at least create conditions in which the Bosnian Muslims do not feel that they are being asked to accede to a totally unjust peace. That is what they feel now as they know that
        706
        the sanctions are not working thoroughly and that both their opponents, Serbs and Croats, have access to more arms than they do.
        We should now re-examine the sanctions procedures. We should argue that very much tougher sanctions should be maintained at all times, and particularly now with regard to Serbia.
        All in all, the aim of the report was, as we state in paragraph 263, to describe
        "a range of practical ways in which the work of the United Nations could be made more effective, which we call upon the United Kingdom Government to support—especially ways of extending the diplomatic and other preventive work of the Organisation, its Secretary-General and the other UN agencies."
        Obviously what we said was not comprehensive. There are United Nations missions and activities around the world which we did not get near and some of those may turn into demands for heavier commitments of resources before very long.
        We are at a critical moment. There is a tug of war between the belief that the United Nations can solve all the post-cold war problems as they grow and the belief that the United Nations had lost credibility in various areas, including in Yugoslavia and particularly in Somalia. The Americans say that they are going to pull out on 31 March whatever happens—and heaven knows what will happen after that. There could be some very dark developments in some of these areas.
        There are regions of success. Namibia prospers as a result of United Nations efforts. The United Nations is withdrawing in Cambodia and it looks at the moment, although this may be a dangerous prediction, as though a more peaceful order will prevail. However, there is nothing but defeat and setbacks in other areas.
        With those mixed feelings, with some caution about over enthusiasm and hope that the United Nations can be reformed, we set the report before the House. I hope that it will be valuable and useful to hon. Members as we contemplate this vast business of peacekeeping, with all its expenses and frustrations, which lies before us in ever growing quantity.
        4.48 pm
        Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his Committee on a most comprehensive report on an extremely important and difficult subject. Over the next few years, the report will be regarded as absloutely essential to how the United Nations develops.
        I also thank the Government for choosing this aspect of the Foreign Office estimates to be discussed. The debate enables hon. Members to examine many of our international commitments. We do not normally have such an opportunity. Also, the debate allows us further to re-examine the role of the United Nations in this post-cold war era, with the background of the Select Committee's valuable report.
        The debate also encourages interested hon. Members to come to the House on a Monday, when there is only a one-line Whip and when there will probably be only one vote, to advance their interests in respect of many countries. The Government participate in a very wide range of peacekeeping activities within the United Nations.
        I must admit that, not being an expert or an accountant, I lost my way somewhat when I examined the estimates. I thank the Foreign Office officials for their generous help in

        707
        filling in the gaps—literally. Some sections of the estimates, particularly those dealing with international organisations and peacekeeping forces, are not clear to the lay person. Perhaps the Government could do a better job in presenting funding figures in the same currency, providing more comprehensive explanations of expenditure, and advising when assessments correspond with projections.
        Our present commitments are comprehensive and world wide, but they are also different and reflect different involvements. As the right hon. Member for Guildford said, one cannot anticipate problems or what one needs to do to try to resolve them. One of the biggest issues that we fact—it is mentioned in the report—is when and where the United Nations could and should be involved. When does it have, as the French call it, le droit d'ingerence, or the right to interfere?
        In his "Agenda for Peace", Dr. Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General, suggested that it was time for the United Nations to consider fighting natural disasters as well as man-made ones. However, the continual question is whether an ostensibly global organisation should infringe the national sovereignty of affected nations when their own Governments do not meet their needs. That question is much easier to answer when it is applied to natural disasters or humanitarian crises, but it is much more difficult to resolve, as we have seen in Yugoslavia, when sanctions and military force need to be deployed.
        The Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggested some guidelines that should be drawn up for humanitarian assistance, but the Government pointed out—yet again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—in a most inadequate response to the Committee that such guidelines would erode the flexibility of the United Nations to respond to emergencies. However, it is obvious that the present system is not working. Some guidance is necessary, but only to reassure a Government or areas that come under scrutiny or need action that they are not being picked out for special treatment and that nations are responding objectively.
        Sir David Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the universal declaration of human rights gives the basis for such an alteration in guidelines? It is a later document than the charter and it emphasises that individuals and communities have rights under whatever nation state. That should be the starting point of the guidelines.
        Mr. Rogers: I accept that that point could be considered, but the Select Committee and the Government, in fairness to them, realise the enormous difficulty in drawing up guidelines. Bearing in mind the report to which the right hon. Member for Guildford referred, one could make a very strong case for interference by the United Nations in the affairs of this country, particularly in respect of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether Parliament would agree to that.
        The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) should bear that point in mind when it comes to interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. After all, the United Nations was founded on the
        708
        principle that member states are sovereign, that their boundaries are inviolate and that it would be wrong to interfere in the affairs of a member state.
        When discussing the United Nations and peacekeeping, it would be wrong to ignore or overstate the part played by non-governmental organisations. The commitment, dedication and humanitarian work of NGOs is unquestioned, but a lack of both funds and Government support often prevents them from fulfilling or completing their tasks.
        In a written answer on 16 July, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that the Government do not earmark money for British-based NGOs and that money is neither given directly to NGOs nor specifically to United Nations programmes for the funding of NGOs. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is still the Government's policy. I am sure that other hon. Members agree that the ability of NGOs to act swiftly in providing humanitarian aid is not only crucial in relieving suffering but could obviate the need for more formal United Nations intervention, even of a non-military kind.
        The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am sorry, but I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's question. On occasions, money is made available to NGOs to spend in countries of concern. That happens quite frequently. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is seeking an answer to a different question. I did not quite follow the line of his question—I apologise.
        Mr. Rogers: On 16 July 1992, a written question was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He said:
        "We shall continue to consider on their merits requests from British non-governmental organisations to fund specific projects … We do not earmark for non-governmental organisations any specific part of our contribution to the United Nations programme."—[Official Report, 16 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 968.]
        The Government should re-examine that policy and perhaps set aside a small amount for NGOs to ensure that relief operations can begin in the interval between the emergence of humanitarian crises and the decision of member states to send in a United Nations mission.
        Mr. Jim Lester: If the hon. Gentleman analysed the facts, he would agree that the Governmnent have consistently used NGOs more and more each year, as they are very relevant to certain countries and certain conditions. If the hon. Gentleman analysed the Foreign Office estimates, he would find that non-governmental organisations have had more and more money each year to carry out the work that we all agree is necessary.
        Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman may be right—I confessed that I had difficulty in wading through the estimates. However, I looked for that specific matter, and it is in a special section. If the hon. Gentleman examines it, he will see that money is not specifically earmarked on a year-by-year basis for NGOs, but that is not to say that money is not given on specific request.
        As we know, the end of the cold war brought about a completely different international situation. There was a period where there were clearly defined roles and interests, but now there is a great deal of uncertainty. We also know that the United Nations has never functioned as originally intended because of the bipolarity in the exercise of the veto when interests were threatened. The Security Council

        709
        of the United Nations was able to make firm decision on only a few occasions—for example, with regard to Palestine, Korea, the Congo, South Africa and the Falklands.
        The passage of resolution 678 in 1990 with regard to the cold war led everyone to hope, as the right hon. Member for Guildford said, that the United Nations could fulfil the constructive role envisaged by its founders and perhaps positively create a new world order. Unfortunately, since then—partly because of the accelerated break-up of totalitarian regions—the number and complexity of conflicts has meant that the United Nations has been asked to fulfil tasks that, for many reasons, it is unable to do. Of the 27 peacekeeping operations undertaken since 1948, 13 are still under way and eight have been launched in only the past two years.
        I am sure that we can recall all the relative optimism when it was agreed that the United Nations should be used to resolve the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, last year, the right hon. Member for Guildford told the House:
        "The Select Committee took the view that our hopes must rest on the United Nations as an effective force. It may have to remain in Yugoslavia for some time."—[Official Report, 5 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 464.]
        That comment expressed hope, but it also realistically anticipated despair—an anticipation which has been fulfilled. One cannot see a resolution to the problems in the former Yugoslavia—but that is true in almost all instances. Most of the problems in which the United Nations has become involved have remained unresolved. In Bosnia, peacekeeping forces have an inadequate mandate and are too small to be effective.
        In Cambodia, the elections were monitored and the United Nations will now withdraw, but the UN was still unable to cope when one side did not accept the result. At present, the difficulties between the Khmer Rouge and the elected Government are still on the table. In Somalia, a massive force is unable to resolve the problems because of the lack of administrative and government structures and a mandate that is not clear. In Western Sahara and Angola, the same inabilities persist.
        An analysis of those relative failures shows that there is a common theme in all the situations. The Security Council of the United Nations was not able to act decisively and quickly, its mandates were inadequate, its resources were inadequate, and the problems and political aims were not clearly identified. Those shortcomings raised the whole question of the future of the United Nations, its role and its effectiveness.
        As the right hon. Gentleman said, some people now question and criticise the United Nations as an institution. Some talk about using other institutions and structures to resolve conflict and, indeed, creating new structures to achieve that objective. Fortunately, a vast majority of politicians and countries realise that there is no real alternative to the United Nations. What is also evident from analysing the issues that have been resolved by the United Nations is that regional organisations have not been able, for various reasons, to do much about the problems either.
        Neither the European Community nor the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is able to stop the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia. In Angola, Somalia, Mozambique and the Sudan, the Organisation of African
        710
        Unity has been unable to resolve the conflicts. The Organisation of American States is still unable to deal with several crises in its hemisphere, especially in Haiti.
        Obviously, the answer lies in increasing the effectiveness of the United Nations, both internally by improving its decision-making processes and making resources available to implement decisions taken, and externally by reviewing its relationship with member states and the regional groupings of those states. We believe that there is a role for regional organisations, either independently or in conjunction with the United Nations, in resolving most conflicts, which are, after all, almost always regional.
        We know that peacekeeping and peacemaking can be brought about not only by sanctions and the use of force but by such means as arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures, improving the economic and social conditions in the areas of conflict—that is perhaps ignored and not invested in—using effective preventive diplomacy and providing efficient peacekeeping mechanisms.
        Undoubtedly, the present resources and energy of the United Nations are spread too thin. Member states still prefer action that is low cost with a limited commitment. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is much easier for the United Nations and its member states to rely on economic sanctions of debatable efficacy which are often broken and unenforceable, and unlikely to address the structural problems of the political systems at which they are directed.
        As well as the vast increase in the activities of the United Nations, the concept of peacekeeping is undergoing profound change. That area is under active review not only in the Select Committee's report but in the report entitled "Agenda for Peace" of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. That report is sensible, realistic and challenging.
        The Secretary-General proposed that members of the United Nations must provide resources to implement the potential decisions that are given in the report. For example, he suggests that the United Nations should move from peacekeeping to peacemaking, including crisis prevention and the preventive deployment of troops; that peacekeeping should be expanded to include the imposition of sanctions and involve the training of civilian police in politically neutral military forces; and that more effort should be made in post-conflict peacebuilding which is essential to ensure that peace, once established, takes firm hold.
        Those proposals would require substantial changes within the United Nations. But whatever changes come about, all the other reforms of the United Nations are irrelevant without financial reform. In September 1992, an international advisory group on United Nations financing observed that the United Nations lived from hand to mouth. The committee, which was chaired by Shijuro Ogata and Paul Volker, made some simple suggestions: all countries should pay their assessed United Nations due on time and in full; interest should be charged on late payments; the working capital fund should be doubled from the present level; and other measures should be introduced to improve the financial efficacy of the organisation. Those issues are highlighted in the Select Committee's report.
        Whatever is finally agreed, there is an urgent need for a link between peacekeeping operations and the process of political settlement, and for a strengthening of the mandate of peacekeeping forces to ensure the security of personnel

        711
        and prevent parties to the conflict from impeding the conduct of operations. If the United Nations is to be more effective, it must develop the intelligence-gathering facility referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It is grossly unfair to criticise the United Nations for its operations in certain areas of the world, because it simply does not have the facility to gather intelligence so that it can plan its role in any area almost on a day-to-day basis.
        The Opposition are absolutely committed to a future role for the United Nations. We firmly believe that the creation of a new world order—indeed, world peace—relies on an effective international organisation. The search for other structures, for example, such as that that we see in Europe at the present time in relation to NATO and the Western European Union, are not incompatible with the function and role of the United Nations, but they cannot and will not be a substitute for the United Nations itself. I believe that the report by the Select Committee is of significant importance and will be used in any future discussions about the role of the United Nations. But it is important that the House gives unequivocal support for the United Nations and for its development as an effective institution for world peace.
        5.10 pm
        Sir Michael Marshall: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, for the documents that are before us, which clearly underpin so much of our debate today. The whole House will recognise, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, that, in many ways, the documents can be seen as important reference works when we look at the grave problems of United Nations peacekeeping activities around the world.
        As we are under pressure of time, I shall be brief and concentrate my remarks on the challenges facing the United Nations and its direct British support in the peacekeeping role in Bosnia. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out so vividly in his article in the Sunday Times yesterday, there has been a tendency for media attention to drop away, in that rather sad way we see when somehow it becomes yesterday's news.
        All the signs are that the problems in Bosnia are worse now than at any time. The estimates which were made last year for the possibility of half a million dead because of starvation—which, thank God, were not realised—have become a real concern and possibility in this much harder winter. This is happening at a time when military activity has been stepped up and when there is a feeling that there is a fight to the finish. Against that background, I strongly support what the estimates imply in terms of additional and increased activity in United Kingdom assistance in peacekeeping and in disaster relief for Bosnia.
        I shall concentrate on the degree to which the efforts of the United Nations, our Government and national resources may be backed up by parliamentary endeavour. As I have said, I recognise the important role that is played by the two Select Committees, whose reports we are considering. I recognise, too, the roles that are played by
        712
        others who are represented here today, including the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and by many of our colleagues involved in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and in the Council of Europe. I do not seek to make any special claim for initiatives to which I and the organisation that I have the honour to lead in the Inter-Parliamentary Union can lay claim.
        I returned yesterday from Geneva after a meeting at the weekend of our executive in which we tried to decide how an international parliamentary mission might be of use in this grave situation. Like so many others before us, we have found real difficulty in identifying practical and effective steps to end the tragedy. However, we are conscious of the fact that the mandate which was given to us by 125 Parliaments, which was brought forward at our conference in New Delhi in the spring, clearly called on us to hold consultations on human rights and to support efforts for peace in the region.
        As a result, I took the opportunity in June to accept invitations from the Speakers of the Parliaments of the former Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia and Slovenia, to visit them. That was as a direct result of their membership of the IPU. Following our latest discussions over the weekend within the executive of the IPU, it is clear that there is a strong feeling that we should now make an effort to add to that a dialogue, through first-hand experience in Bosnia, particularly in Sarajevo—although we have no formal links as such with Bosnia.
        A number of elements have become clear from all the discussions we have had during our meetings over the weekend involving the 13 countries represented on the executive. The problem is by no means confined to the countries in Europe. The concerns, especially for the Muslim peoples of the former Yugoslavia, are widely shared by our membership. Attempts are being made to find practical methods and to achieve co-operation between north and south. At the same time, we do not wish to be seen simply to be going on for "me-tooism" or to get in the way of those involved in the critical task of disaster relief.
        In that particular task, it is clear that our country, our military forces and those who support them are playing an outstanding part. We asked ourselves what were realistic objectives for a mission of this kind. It is important to understand the unique nature of our links with the country of Yugoslavia—Serbia Montenegro—which, because of its continued membership, meets us regularly. We have access to it, yet it is in a situation which shows a weakness of the United Nations—it has been effectively ruled out of any activity in the General Assembly.
        Such opportunities for activity are virtually nonexistent, and the country's links are confined to technical committees such as the Economic and Social Council. It seemed to many of us that there were opportunities to pursue, for example, the issue of war crimes in discussions in Belgrade, and that, recognising that war crimes were by no means confirmed to one of the three protagonists, those talks should be extended to discussions in Zagreb, with the added interest and support of Slovenia, with the Parliament of Ljubljana, which has been particularly constructive in the dialogue.
        Because we recognise many of the anxieties that have been expressed by hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Minister, about the United Nations' difficulty in taking action on war crimes, particularly with respect to access to those identified, it seemed appropriate to try to

        713
        work out a range of proposals which we hoped would help. We came up with three objectives. The first was to encourage the promotion of domestic prosecution of alleged war criminals who found themselves on the territory of any of the three states under the appropriate Geneva conventions.
        The second was to promote mutual assistance between parties in criminal matters involving grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and protocol 1—for example, additional protocol one, article 88—and co-operation with the United Nations under additional protocol 1, article 89. Although I cite those technical details, in the interests of time I will not spell them out. Their deterrent effect will be familiar to many who are in the House tonight.
        Thirdly, it seemed to us that there was an obvious opportunity to promote better respect for human rights in all the countries that would be visited by such a mission; but, particularly in Bosnia Hercegovina, we felt that, although in the overall sense we were looking at human rights, we should clearly devote every effort to support peace efforts. That included support for our own military, and others on the ground.
        I have therefore written today to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, seeking direct support by Her Majesty's Government in facilitating the mounting of such an expedition. It is envisaged that it will be made up of representatives from Australia, Argentina and Scandinavia. with my own oversight as president and possible involvement in leading the delegation, in whole or part, depending on logistics and the opportunity to fit in with others in the mission.
        Although we will also seek the support of the United Nations through our Geneva headquarters, the reason for seeking support from Her Majesty's Government to what essentially is an international expedition stems in part from past experience; we had outstanding support in the visits made last June to Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, we have all found that our diplomats and those in the field have had a particularly useful and well-organised approach to providing access not just to the people whom we might normally expect to meet but to the media, opposition parties and others who want to put forward a more critical line than we would simply receive if we met those representing the Government parties.
        In all those arrangements, it is proposed that our mission should be staffed by the head of the IPU presidential office in London, whom I shall mention, no doubt much to his embarrassment. Mr. James Radcliffe is well known to many hon. Members as an example of what, through secondment from the Foreign Office, it is possible for an international parliamentary organisation to achieve in a partnership between Government and Parliament.
        I am aware of the efforts of others. I make no special claim that our mission can produce something dramatic, but the point must be fairly made that our group, because it mirrors the United Nations, has a broader spread than any other international parliamentary organisation. It has a proud history of foundation by a British and a French parliamentarian more than a century ago. It may be able to demonstrate, as many in the Chamber will agree, that parliamentarians can undertake international tasks.
        I hope that it will be seen as an example that gives the lie to those who regard such activities as frivolous or part of the travel club syndrome. The nature of such international representations from countries that have no
        714
        obvious and direct linkage with the problems of the region shows how such problems can be considered and worked upon in the wider international parliamentary community.
        Any mission such as this, which has the opportunity to see and encourage at first hand the staggering efforts of those working for relief in Bosnia, is to be welcomed. Having seen the work of our people as part of UNPROFOR in Zagreb, I am anxious that we should extend that work, especially to support the United Nations command headquarters in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
        I hope that such a mission will command the general support of the House and of Her Majesty's Government. I recognise that I am raising a matter of which I have given my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister virtually no notice, but it is a small example of the way in which parliamentary diplomacy can supplement preventive diplomacy, as urged on us by the UN Secretary-General. I hope that our mission will be seen not only as a contribution to the work of the Select Committee and the estimates which are before us but as something on which we may build in years to come.
        5.22 pm
        Mr. Calum Macdonald: I agree with what the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said about the mission that the IPU is hoping to undertake. I wish it well, and I hope that it gets the co-operation that it needs from the Foreign Office. It is important that we have not just one-way traffic between Parliaments in the west and elsewhere—for example, the Balkans—but two-way traffic. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is next to impossible for the Members of the Bosnian Parliament in Sarajevo, a city under siege, to respond to invitations to visit other European countries. It is as important to break that aspect of the siege of Sarajevo—the spiritual siege of Sarajevo—as it is to break the material siege.
        The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) spoke of the high hopes at the end of the cold war and of how those hopes have been disappointed. As he stressed, it is important not to overdo the gloom. The opportunity for a more proactive, more interventionist role in regional conflicts, provided by the end of the cold war, is still there. The end of the cold war did not mean the end of those regional conflicts and disputes and they are no less complicated or intractable.
        However, one important dimension has been removed from them, and that is the fear that intervention could lead to the wider entanglement of the two rival super-powers. The removal of that dimension provides the international community with an important opportunity, which it has to grasp and of which it must take full advantage. Over the past couple of years, we have run up against various obstacles and difficulties with the mechanisms and procedures to try to deal with regional conflicts, principally the mechanisms of the United Nations.
        Before I say anything about those difficulties, let me add that, in trying to be more active in responding with help to resolve regional conflicts, the outstanding principle that we must defend is that of non-aggression. We must maintain respect for internationally recognised frontiers. The words "internationally recognised" are perhaps the most important in that phrase. We must not distinguish between frontiers in terms of whether they are thought to be artificial or of recent establishment, that they might be seen

        715
        by some to be unfair, that they might divide communities or that they might lead people on one side of a border to wish that they were on the other.
        We cannot bring those factors into play when we try to maintain the principle of respect for internationally recognised borders. One of the causes of our failure in the Balkans is that we tried to distinguish between borders and frontiers that we felt were more durable, more just, more correct and more defensible and those that we thought were more artificial. We cannot make those distinctions. If we try to do so, we shall quickly find ourselves on a slippery slope.
        Not many borders in Europe, particularly in eastern Europe, would stand up to the kind of scrutiny and examination that some people have tried to use on the new borders in the Balkans. The key has to be that if the borders are recognised by the international community, they must be maintained by the international community. I fear that the fact that we have not maintained that principle in the Balkans has been a great blow to our hopes of the new world order.
        Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my hon. Friend arguing that the situation in former Yugoslavia would have been resolved if people had taken a different attitude to the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, or is he arguing—this is how I interpret his remarks—that it does not matter what the historic lines on maps are, we can have a process of almost permanent instability so long as some people somewhere think that they should have "self-determination" and that everybody else should recognise that? I was not entirely clear which road my hon. Friend was following.
        Mr. Macdonald: It was neither, which shows that I was not getting the point across. I was trying to say that, whatever border is internationally recognised, that is the border which the international community should be defending with every means at its disposal. We should not distinguish between borders that may be internationally recognised but are difficult for us to defend and those that could be argued by some to be an artificial creation or a recent creation.
        Some of those attributes may attach to all borders, but if we are to maintain international order the international community must be prepared to rigorously defend any borders that it has recognised as a legal border, no matter how recently brought into being. If the line has been recognised by the international community, the international community must defend it. If we fail to do that we will be on a slippery slope. We will end up making excuses about certain conflicts and certain kinds of aggression by putting forward the argument that the aggression does not matter so much because the border is recent, controversial or open to dispute.
        Mr. Peter Viggers: Is it not more complicated than that? I accept the main thrust of the hon. Member's argument, but is there not another case? In Cyprus, for instance, the two sides fought themselves to a standstill, and the United Nations is quite properly monitoring the line along which they did so. That was not an internationally recognised border until the war caused it to be one.
        Mr. Macdonald: The key point is that the international community still does not recognise that border. That is a line between two communities which was determined by aggression. The international community has rightly refused to recognise the line that has been created, and continues to insist that the original border of Cyprus, the original integrity of Cyprus—as recognised by the international community before the fighting—must continue to be the base point.
        Mr. Rogers: I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but I am not sure how we would put it into operation, for example, in the former Yugoslavia. When do we stop the clock? In 1945, one of the subscribers to the United Nations was the country called Yugoslavia. Is my hon. Friend now arguing that the function of the United Nations should have been to support the Government of Yugoslavia in maintaining their sovereign territory, or do we move the argument forward two or three years, or 20 or 30 years, until we get to a time when Yugoslavia is broken up, and say, "Well, those are now the boundaries that have to be defended, and the United Nations should acknowledge and support them"? I accept the general thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but there are enormous difficulties in following it in such a simplistic way.
        Mr. Macdonald: The question of internal borders is very difficult. While we all support the principle of self-determination of nations, communities or minorities within states in its broadest sense, we must be careful not to allow support for the principle of self-determination to become automatic support for the principle of secession. It is important that we try to maintain the integrity of nation states, which are the building blocks of the international community.
        The constitutions of some nation states allow for various parts of those states to secede. Similarly, the international community may recognise the constitutions of those states as well as the federal constitutions of various parts of those states and their right to secede. It could be argued that, from 1974 onwards, the republics within Yugoslavia had a constitutional right to secede. I agree that we must be careful not to allow our respect and support for minority rights and for the principle of self-determination of communities to lead to an interminable fracturing of existing states. That is a danger which we must guard against.
        My hon. Friend is also right that the principle I am putting forward is, in many ways, a simplifying principle. Unless we try to put forward such a simplifying principle, any hope of maintaining a consistent line and policy when we face the challenges that will come from eastern Europe and elsewhere during the rest of the decade will disappear. It will then be difficult to maintain the kind of stability and order that we seek. If we allow disputes to arise, and the resolution of them by aggression to succeed, many borders in eastern Europe could be disputed. That is unfortunately what we have done in the former Yugoslavia.
        As to the United Nations, the problems that we have seen over the past couple of years have diminished our original optimism. Those problems can be divided into three categories: lack of material resources for the United Nations, the problem of its internal organisation when it

        717
        comes to peacekeeping, and a certain lack of will when faced with various conflicts that we should try to do more about.
        As to the material resources of the United Nations, there is no doubt that those available for peacekeeping have to be built up. A recent report of the United Nations revealed the startling statistics that its peacekeeping budget in 1991 was less than the combined budget of the New York fire and police departments. That was in a year when there were already several peackeeping operations in place around the world. There is no doubt that the budget is utterly inadequate for the tasks that the United Nations will be asked to perform during the rest of the decade.
        The right hon. Member for Guildford raised the point about the United Nations Organisation. The United Nations lacks an independent intelligence gathering capacity and has difficulties with command and control of United Nations operations. Another great problem is the lack of co-ordination between forces that are unused to working with each other and have different levels of equipment and training.
        I visited NATO with a group of colleagues earlier this year, and we were told by General Sir Richard Vincent, the chairman of the military committee, that, in deciding the number of troops he thought necessary for the implementation of the Vance-Owen proposals, he had to take into account all those various deficiencies in the United Nations organisation. Given those deficiencies, in order to do its job the United Nations has to deploy many more troops than would otherwise be necessary.
        The important point about standby forces has already been made. We must look more and more to regional organisations to help to carry the load for the United Nations. We should be looking to regional organisations in Africa, Asia and Europe to share some of the burden. We in Europe have to take a very hard look at how we organise our forces, particularly in the European Community.
        The European Union now has more than 2 million men under arms, yet it protests its absolute impotence and inability to act to sort out regional conflicts in Europe without massive help from the United States, particularly with ground troops. Such a position is unsustainable and the European Union must look towards integrating its forces, particularly in an era of diminished resources all round.
        The third factor that has led to a decline in optimism about the abilities of the UN is the difficulty met in imposing political will, as has been obvious in the Balkans. I do not believe that it has been the failure to impose military will that has held western Governments back from intervening in the Balkans on a grand scale. My conversations with General Vincent and his predecessor, General Eide, have convinced me that a lack of political will has been the key to the failure of the West to intervene more aggressively in the Balkans.
        Western Governments had hoped that the conflict in the Balkans could be contained, that the war in Bosnia could be limited to Bosnia and that it would eventually burn itself out. That hope will be dashed in months and years to come. Our failure to intervene at an earlier stage in that conflict, perhaps during the bombardment of Dubrovnik, means that when we do eventually intervene with military forces—I am sure that that will be necessary—the operation will be far more painful than it would have been had we intervened earlier.
        718
        Even those who disagree with me about the need for military intervention in the Balkans must agree about the importance of maintaining the flow of humanitarian aid to the region. A couple of colleagues and I visited Sarajevo in October and we saw the privations caused by the siege. The aid that is getting through is nothing like enough to relieve the population.
        The figures may sound impressive: 6,000 flights delivering 60,000 tonnes of aid by air to Sarajevo in two years. That should be compared, however, with the 40,000 tonnes of aid that was delivered in one month by air to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf crisis. More tellingly, it should be compared with the 200,000 flights that delivered more than 2 million tonnes of aid to Berlin in 1949—a city which suffered a shorter siege than that of Sarajevo. Such comparisons raise a giant question mark about the serious intent of western Governments' aid efforts in Sarajevo and elsewhere in Bosnia.
        I have raised this matter with the Foreign Secretary. The Minister of State has written to me to explain that an attempt will be made to increase the tempo of the airlifts to Sarajevo. He stressed the difficulties that have been encountered because there is only one flight path in to and out of Sarajevo and because no night flying is allowed due to the supposed greater dangers that such an operation poses. He argued that that one flight path meant that planes were given a 30-minute time slot to land and take off from Sarajevo.
        Such excuses are inadequate. I do not see why it is not possible to establish more than one flight path and to organise night flights to deliver aid. I do not know why each plane needs a 30-minutes time slot when planes land at Heathrow every couple of minutes and planes landed every minute and a half during the Berlin airlift. Those excuses are not credible and I fear that western Governments' seriousness of intent in delivering humanitarian aid is no greater than their seriousness of intent in maintaining international law and the principles previously enunciated in the Balkans.
        5.44 pm
        Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said, the Select Committee on Defence published a report on the United Kingdom's peacekeeping and intervention forces on 9 June and the Government replied on 3 November. I should like to take this opportunity to refer briefly to our report and to draw to the attention of the House a couple of our specific proposals.
        It is a pleasure to agree entirely with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the need to support the role of the United Nations. It is the only international body that can possibly give legitimacy to the peacekeeping operations which various countries are attempting around the world. If we allow the United Nations to fail, we will go down the route that we followed in the 1930s with the League of Nations and, in the end, the world will once again descend into a massive conflict and an era of instability. The United Nations must be supported and Great Britain has a particularly useful role to play in providing our share of that support.
        It also gives me great pleasure to agree with the Ministry of Defence—I do not always find myself able to do that, nor does the Select Committee on Defence—about the wisdom of not attempting to earmark specific forces for

        719
        use in the United Nations arena. Were we to do so, we would fall into the trap of trying to anticipate the unanticipatable and provide forces for something that might never occur.
        It is important to train specifically the forces that will be used in United Nations peacekeeping in certain areas. I welcome what the Government said of that requirement in their reply on 3 November to the Select Committee's report:
        "It may be necessary to refine some skills (for example, environmental hygiene, first aid and mine awareness) and to teach some new skills (such as mediation, conciliation and integration with non-governmental agencies) which would not normally be required for military operations. In this context, it may be helpful to think of peacekeeping as a separate environment (in the same way as jungle, mountain or Arctic operations) for which trained forces need specific familiarisation training in order to be as effective as possible."
        That is a good analysis of the need to train our forces to enable them to play a full part in peacekeeping. Our experience in Northern Ireland makes us the world leader in providing that kind of training and producing the forces that are capable of fulfilling that role.
        I also welcome the fact that the Government affirmed in paragraph 39 of their reply that employment in peacekeeping operations should enjoy a high status and stated:
        "We are keen to deploy high quality personnel to such 36appointments".
        I am still concerned, however, about the way in which United Nations operations are funded. We are in great muddle about providing the funding for the forces that we use in various peacekeeping roles. Because of our current deployment in Bosnia, for example, the Ministry of Defence is left with a big bill for enforcing the no-fly zone with the Jaguars and the Ark Royal group in the Adriatic. That bill is met from the defence budget.
        I understand that the Ministry of Defence reclaims UNPROFOR costs—"additional" ones only, I believe—from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which, in turn, needs extra money from the Treasury to meet that claim. We all pray that, in due course, the United Nations will reimburse us, but that seems highly unlikely to me. The flow of money takes an extremely circuitous route and the Select Committee recommended:
        "Additional financial provision should be made available to the Ministry of Defence specifically for peacekeeping expenses in the next public expenditure survey."
        It was not.
        The Government reply to the Defence Committee stated:
        "The relevant interdepartmental financial arrangements have existed for some years, and are clear and well-understood by the Departments concerned."
        They may be understood by the Departments concerned, but I do not think that the logic behind them was understood by anyone else. The Select Committee on Defence, with, I hope, the support of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, would like that to be reviewed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, will join that request.
        I cannot believe that it is in the interests of the Foreign Office occasionally to find sums levied through it by the Ministry of Defence. For example, in Cyprus, some of the money that is claimed from the Foreign Office by the
        720
        Ministry of Defence errs on the side of over-generosity. The cost of the Ferret squadron that was with the United Nations forces in Cyprus was charged through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at £4.3 million a year. Fond as I am of asking the Ministry of Defence for more money, I find that sum hard to justify in those circumstances. I hope that we shall find a more sensible way to fund our United Nations requirements and to stop the circuitous route by which it is done.
        I am conscious of the fact that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall briefly consider two specific areas where there are United Nations peacekeeping forces at the moment—Cyprus and Bosnia. The Select Committee on Defence visited Cyprus in May and found the Canadian forces on the point of withdrawing, as were the Danes. At that time, Britain was dramatically reducing its contributions and no substitution had been found for the Danes. The thin red line between the Turkish and Greek sectors was looking extraordinarily thin. I am glad to be able to say that an Argentine contingent replaced the Denmark troops. None the less, there is a sad lack of forces between the two communities in Cyprus.
        Mr. Lester: Is not one aspect that concerns people on the subject of putting troops into Cyprus the fact that it has taken an inordinately long time to reach any solution? I met Canadian officers who had begun as lieutenants and have now returned as brigadiers because they were there for so long and there is still no further move to settle the problem.
        Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I accept my hon. Friend's point. It has taken a long time to find a solution. I am not sure what the solution is or whether my hon. Friend would care to offer one. I am certain that the conclusion that should not be reached is one in which the Greeks and the Turks begin fighting each other in Cyprus.
        When we returned, we expressed our concern that the Ferret scout car squadron, which was with the United Nations forces, was being withdrawn and was not replaced at that time by any other armour. The reconnaissance squadron was withdrawn from the sovereign base area and, at the same time, the armour that was hitherto held by the 34 Squadron of the RAF regiment was being replaced by Landrovers.
        At that time, the only armour left to any of the British forces in Cyprus were the Ferret scout cars, which the commander had the presence of mind to transfer from the armoured squadron to the infantry regiment and to train some of the infantry to drive. There was at least some armoured cover in the event of trouble. There has been a proposal, although it has not been dated or allocated numbers, to send some Saxons out to the sovereign base areas.
        When we made our criticisms, the Ministry of Defence said:
        "The security situation is much more settled and, put simply, UNFICYP has less to do than in the past".
        That statement must have been drafted, if not published, before the Greek elections, because that is certainly not the case. From all the news that I have received from that part of the world, it seems that the new Greek Administration are likely to be much more aggressive in their support for the militants in the Greek Cypriot community than their predecessors. I am seriously concerned that if the United Nations showed any sign of weakness in its determination to keep those communities apart, we might find ourselves again facing serious problems.
        Mr. Tony Banks: Is not the role of the United Nations in Cyprus more than a question of keeping the two communities apart? Is not its equally important function to be able to introduce some confidence-building measures? Is not that what the United Nations is doing at the moment—trying to open up Nicosia airport and use the military zones as a point of contact for the two communities? It is not just a question of keeping the two sides apart; we need to get them together.
        Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am not trying to deal with the issue in that way. I am concentrating on the military consequences of United Nations participation in the military arena and I am presenting the report of the Defence Select Committee. In the broader sense, we must seek through different negotiations to reach the stage—which we have not yet reached—when United Nations forces become unnecessary. That is a separate and more important facet of the problem in Cyprus.
        I am also concerned that the Cyprus problem must not be allowed to become a catalyst, by which the two eastern members of NATO—Turkey and Greece—find themselves in military conflict. That would have an extraordinary wide effect on the whole NATO security position and on the security of the eastern end of the Mediterranean. We must keep sufficient United Nations forces there until diplomatic negotiations succeed, to ensure that there is not a flaring up of military or generally aggressive antagonism between the two Cypriot communities.
        There seem to be two clear objectives for the United Nations to follow in Bosnia—to limit the conflict so that it does not spread to Macedonia, Kosovo and through the eastern Mediterranean countries and to find a solution whereby Bosnia can be divided in a way that is equitable, sustainable and acceptable to all three communities in that devastated country.
        I visited Bosnia in March and I have never seen such a desolate and inhuman place. All natural human feelings seem to have disappeared. I read a letter from a serving soldier in which he described it as being like the kingdom of Mordor—all sense of justice, humanity or religion seems to have been thrown out the window and all three sides are behaving with unacceptable bestiality towards each other.
        In those circumstances, it is extremely hard to see how a solution such as the one that I have outlined as necessary can be found, but I wish Lord Owen and his team every success in their endeavours. Sooner or later, the participants must become war-weary and reach some kind of arrangement so that the conflict can be brought to an end. When that occurs, I have no doubt that the United Nations must move in and enforce the newly agreed areas and divisions so that the position can be stabilised and all three communities learn to live in peace—if not together, at least next to each other.
        In the meantime, I believe, as does the Committee, that the humanitarian role that our troops perform magnificently cannot go on indenfinitely. The troops in Vitez are surrounded by forces that are likely to become more directly hostile to the United Nation forces in their midst. There must be a clear time limit within which we shall have to withdraw troops if no solution can be found along the lines that I have suggested. I do not believe that we can keep our humanitarian forces in place in Bosnia for much longer. How long that will be is a matter for Her Majesty's
        722
        Government, but I should be reluctant to accept a decision to keep our forces there through another winter. However, I would be equally unlikely to wish to remove them now, as they still fulfil a useful humanitarian role this winter.
        Those are the two major United Nations commitments in which our troops are involved, and there are few others, which is one reason why I do not especially look forward to the defence review. The defence requirements are clear and unarguable. The requirements are that we look after Northern Ireland, that we look after our interests in Germany and NATO and that we produce troops for the United Nations when we are requested to do so and when it is within our capability and in our interests to comply.
        We currently have few other commitments. Our commitments in Cambodia will soon be finished. We pulled out of Sinai a year ago. In their reply to the Defence Select Committee report, the Government announced that they had decided to withdraw our 15 officers from MINURSO, the United Nations mission charged with facilitating a referendum in the western Sahara. I believe that it is right that they have done so. We sent only two Hercules to Somalia. In retrospect, we might have been better advised to play a slightly bigger role. Our advice might have been helpful in obtaining a more precise definition of the targets in that area.
        We have no commitments other than those that I have outlined. However, there is no doubt that we shall have others. The way international affairs are going, I am sure that the United Nations will ask us to participate in missions—if nowhere else, certainly in Bosnia once peace is declared. We shall be asked to help enforce the peace agreement. The United Kingdom would be requested to send at least a brigade and probably substantially more. We would find it almost impossible to comply with that request, certainly for any length of time, without seriously disrupting our other defence commitments.
        I welcome the Government's statement in paragraph 27 of their reply to our report setting out the terms on which they would be prepared to give further support to the United Nations. They said:
        "Requests to participate will continue to be considered case by case in the light of other commitments, available resources and foreign policy objectives. Specific factors taken into account include the likelihood of the operation achieving its stated aim, whether it can be expected to contribute to a lasting political settlement, and whether it calls for capabilities that British forces are especially well able to provide, and whether the objectives and mandate proposed for the peacekeeping force are clear and precise."
        I am glad that I did not draft that sentence. Its grammatical weakness speaks for itself. I hope that the requirements for the peacekeeping force will be clearer and more precise. The Government continued:
        "The cost and likely duration of the mission are also important considerations … We can confirm that full consideration is also given to the scarcity of particular assets, and the disproportionate impact of supporting a number of small operations."
        Those criteria are well expressed. They are the ones that the Government should follow.
        My anxiety is that, even in the case of Bosnia, which is fairly predictable, we could not fulfil the requirement that we are likely to be asked to fulfil without impacting badly on our other commitments. I am also worried that the number of small conflicts to which we are asked to send some peacekeeping forces disrupts badly our ability to train our armed forces for their primary role, which is to defend us in time of war. It is almost impossible to get together a brigade, let alone a division or any larger unit,

        723
        to train artillery, infantry and armour together because of the number of commitments which each of those sectors is called on to fulfil in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
        The proposal of the Defence Select Committee, which I endorse, is that there should be an increment in our armed forces sufficient to match the likely overall requirement of United Nations peacekeeping, just as we have an increment for leave, for training abroad and for the times when a soldier is away from his unit for various duties. We should do exactly the same thing on a larger scale for United Nations commitments so that although we do not earmark soldiers, sailors or airmen for United Nations peacekeeping activities, at least we can be confident that we have the number to do so whenever necessary without disrupting all our other military commitments.
        6.3 pm
        Mr. George Galloway: I am not sure on what basis the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) opened the debate, but it is appropriate in any case that I should apologise to him and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for missing much of his opening speech. I was unavoidably detained.
        Although the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), has temporarily left his place, I should like to convey through him to the Foreign Office staff, with whom many of us in the House have regular contact, my personal gratitude for the courtesy and efficiency with which they always deal with requests for information and assistance such as I have had cause to make of late. It is worth making the point to the House and to the public that we employ some first-class people in the Foreign Office in embassies around the world and in the offices in Whitehall. I wished to grab a moment to make that clear.
        The main burden of my remarks relate to the peacekeeping operation which the United Nations are mounting with British support and British funds in, over and around Iraq. From my personal experience, we are creating devastation in and around that area and calling it peacekeeping. Some aspects of that peacekeeping greatly worry me and, increasingly, civilised opinion around the world.
        I had cause at the weekend to call the office of the Minister of State to make inquiries, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), with whom I spoke several times at the weekend. The House will be glad to know that he is recuperating from his operation and hopes to be with us again in February. None the less, he is taking a close interest in parliamentary affairs from his sickbed.
        He and I were both concerned at the weekend by reports that appeared in The Guardian on Saturday. On subsequent investigation, it turned out that the reports flowed from an item that was gazetted by the Government in the London Gazette on Friday—that the United Kingdom Government had sequestered £186,000 from funds which belong to Iraq and are frozen in this country. The Government have transferred those funds to the United Nations "in support"—I think that that was the phrase—of UN efforts.
        Of course, it depends on the purposes for which the funds are to be earmarked whether I and others like me think that the sequestration is a good thing. I should like to
        724
        probe the Government as part of a discussion of the general issue. It is strange to many of us that the item should have been gazetted on Friday and therefore presumably sent for publication before then, at the very time when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was in Iraq accomplishing the splendid achievement of convincing the Iraqi authorities to free the three British prisoners held in Baghdad who were subject to inordinately long and savage sentences for relatively minor transgressions of Iraqi law.
        At the very time when we were throwing hats up for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the Government decided to purloin—it will be interesting to hear the Minister's description of the transfer if it was not purloining—£186,000 of Iraqi assets. At the same time, Iraqi citizens are suffering massively from the impact of the economic embargo.
        The United Nations Security Council resolutions allow the sequestration of Iraqi frozen assets, but it is my understanding that they must be assets flowing from the proceeds of the sale of Iraqi petroleum or petroleum products paid for by or on behalf of the purchaser on or after 6 August 1990.
        My information is that almost none of the funds that are being frozen and are available for sequestration by the Government fall into that category. Some of us are therefore suspicious that the funds were not covered by the UN resolution and we should be grateful for some elaboration. That seems to beg some questions.
        First, is the money being transferred from London to New York to assist in the humanitarian relief of ordinary Iraqi citizens who have never voted for Saddam Hussein, have never had a general election or any opportunity to remove his Government from office and yet are suffering enormous deprivation as a result of the United Nations peacekeeping operation or, as I have argued, the UN devastation and continued humiliation of the state of Iraq?
        The second question, which flows from the first, is that if money had been transferred for humanitarian purposes, has a deal been done in New York by Her Majesty's Government with the Iraqi Government, whereby the money was transferred to New York in exchange for those British prisoners? If there has been a deal, we should know about it and we should know what other deals may be in the pipeline. It goes without saying that £186,000 is a derisory sum in any case. I am not sure what United Nations efforts can be supported by the transfer of such a small sum; it seems to me that it would not even pay the telephone bills of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in the area.
        Mr. Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that important issue. He has prodded my memory. Some time ago, I led the Opposition side on a committee that dealt with compensation for victims of the Iraq war. A couple of days ago, I read that the first category of people who should have received compensation from the fund set up by the United Nations—people who had suffered injury or the loss of a husband or wife—had not yet received any. I hope that before he sits down my hon. Friend will press the Minister on what the Government are doing about compensating those victims. I agree with my hon. Friend about the suffering of the Iraqi people, which he described so cogently.
        Mr. Galloway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the Minister has heard him, is writing down the question and is doubtless formulating an answer.
        The question on which I am seeking to press the Government remains: what is the money and has it been transferred for humanitarian purposes in Iraq or, to use the phrase in the London Gazette, has it been transferred to "support" United Nations operations of other kinds? For example, has it been transferred to support the military operations that are taking place around the Iraqi borders and in and over Iraqi territory? If that were the case, it was a needlessly provocative act to have embarked upon on the same day that a former British Prime Minister was in Baghdad pleading for the release of British citizens, quite apart from being wrong in principal because the Iraqi people have suffered more than enough already. Has the money been transferred for humanitarian purposes? That is what we want the Government to tell us.
        I must press upon the Government the case that the devastation that we call peacekeeping, against and around Iraq, has already gone far enough. The Government ought to seize the opportunity that undoubtedly exists as the international ice, which has packed in and around Iraq during the four and a half years since the Gulf war, begins to crack.
        When the hotels in Baghdad are full of Italian, French, German and Spanish business people; when the oil price has tumbled to about $13 a barrel in anticipation of the flow of Iraqi oil products to the markets; when there is a visibly increased and improved tempo in the United Nations, the Security Council and sanctions committee; and when the meetings between Tariq Aziz and Ralph Exus were apparently so successful that we might at last begin to see a light at the end of the tunnel, in the hostilities between the international community and the Iraqi Government, we ought to be seizing the opportunity to bring some relief to the people of Iraq. That would be a real measure of peacekeeping, rather than the devastation that we are calling peacekeeping.
        As the Minister of State knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I visited Iraq in May. In a couple of weeks, I am going with Ahmed Ben Bella, the former Algerian leader, Mr. Ramsey Clark the former United States Attorney-General, and Members of Parliament from France, Greece and elsewhere on a mission to study further the devastating impact that the war, its aftermath and the economic embargo and blockade are having on the people of Iraq.
        It has been said in the House before, but it bears repeating when we are discussing what type of peace is being kept in the Gulf today, that the malnutrition and sickness that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I witnessed with our own eyes would have moved a person with stone for a heart, so terrible were the conditions. We visited hospitals where there was no medicine and no spare parts for the medical equipment. There was no electricity for operations and women were having caesarian sections without anaesthetic because none was available. The garbage lay uncollected in the streets—tonnes and tonnes of rubbish mounting up on every corner because the spare parts for vehicles to collect it do not exist and nor do incineration facilities.
        The great waterways of the Tigris and Euphrates are unprotected and unprotectable by the authorities. They are teeming with water-borne diseases, which make children, old people and others more and more sick when there is no
        726
        medicine or equipment with which to treat them. The Minister knows about the tremendous increase in marasmus, kwashiorkor and malnutrition of all kinds, as well as in polio and cholera, which is a result of the poisoned water that Iraqis in urban and rural communities have to use.
        Iraq is a developed country which is being de-developed by the United Nations with our participation, using our funds to support the United Nations effort. It is being de-developed by the very Governments and countries who used to be so friendly with Iraq and its Government. The Conservative Members in the House this evening are a fairly civilised bunch, but none has sought to argue that case. For the record, I am a founder member of the campaign against oppression and for democratic rights in Iraq. I was marching, petitioning and picketing for democracy and against dictatorship there long before this and other Governments were converted to opposition to the regime in Baghdad. I stand in second place to no one in my opposition to the bestialities of that regime.
        My argument is that the peace that we are keeping is not affecting the regime, which is stronger than it was four years ago. The peace that we are keeping is starving the ordinary people of Iraq, who have no means of defending themselves from our peacekeeping and no means of overthrowing their Government. Indeed, in their emaciated, depressed, hungry and sick state, they are much less able to overthrow their Government than they would be if the embargo that we call "peacekeeping" did not exist.
        Dr. Robert Spink: Is not the point that, if the evil Iraqi regime were to get its hands on more resources, it would use them not to soften the circumstances of its people but further to oppress its people?
        Mr. Galloway: It is perfectly possible for us, within the United Nations, to develop an agreement with Iraq whereby assets could be transferred—as that block of £186,000 was unfrozen and transferred to New York on Friday—with specific agreements about the purpose for which that money should be spent. It is perfectly within our power, and I assure hon. Members that the Iraqi Government would grab such an opportunity with both hands. Iraqi assets held in London could be spent with British firms on baby milk compounds, on medical, X-ray and anaesthetic equipment and on foodstuffs. We could supervise the purchase of those products here in Britain from British firms and transfer them for distribution, which could be checked in association with the Iraqi Government, to those who need it on the ground.
        The Minister of State knows that the tempo that I have described is increasing and changing. Something is in the wind vis-a-vis the international community and Iraq. Why do we not unfreeze several million pounds, as we unfroze the £186,000 on Friday, and specify that they can be spent with British companies on those vitally needed peaceful products that will keep alive children, sick people and old people who are currently dying for the want of them?
        I have detained the House for long enough. As well as answering my specific points about the £186,000, I implore the Minister, in the light of these new conditions and circumstances, to look at the matter again and encourage the United Nations also to do so.
        6.21 pm
        Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) by talking in detail about Iraq, but I am sure that the House has listened with great attention to what he said. May I simply say that, if there is a prime responsibility for the terrible suffering in that country, it lies with Saddam Hussein. It is important that we should all recognise that.
        It is also important to recognise that if any of the atrocious conditions which the hon. Gentleman so graphically and movingly described are to be laid at the door of the United Nations, it is because we have not yet perfected—far from it—the art of peacekeeping and peacemaking. In the years ahead, we must consider how far the international community can tolerate the existence of a dictator like Saddam Hussein when it must go to war against him. To my mind, our greatest mistake two years ago, when the troops were about to go on the road to Baghdad, was not to have delivered an ultimatum for that man to get out in 48 hours, failing which we would continue.
        I shall not pursue that argument at this stage because I wish to talk briefly about another issue that has been discussed by a number of colleagues on both sides of the House—the issue of Bosnia. That, too, brings into sharp focus the essence of peacemaking and peacekeeping.
        It is now nearly two years since the international community recognised the existence of Bosnia as a sovereign state. One can argue about whether that was wise or foolish, but the fact remains that we did it. Bosnia was granted a seat at the United Nations and its Government, which, I remind the House, is multi-ethnic, was recognised, and is still recognised. Within Sarajevo today—difficult as it might be to believe—the Speaker of the Bosnian Parliament is Serb, while within the Bosnian Government there are Serbs, Croats and Muslims who still cling to the ideal of a multi-ethnic state. Theirs is the Government which the international community recognises.
        It would be outside the terms and remit of this debate to discuss arms embargoes and armed intervention. We have all discussed those issues in the past months and the House is fairly well aware of my views. However, I shall not pursue those arguments today, save to say that we must always ask how morally defensible it is, on the one hand, not go to to the aid of a beleaguered or attacked state and, on the other, not to give it the means to defend itself. We have not resolved that moral dilemma.
        Whatever one may think or say about what could have or should have been done—more than two years ago I wanted tough deterrent action to be taken when Dubrovnik, a world heritage site, was bombarded—we cannot escape the fact that, as an international community in the United Nations, as a European Community and as NATO, we have all failed. The sign of our failure—the 2 million-plus refugees in the centre of Europe; 200,000 or thereabouts killed, most of them civilians; the suffering and carnage; and the raping and pillage— beggars belief. That it should have happened less than 50 years after the end of the second world war to end all wars in our continent of Europe is a lasting disgrace and a shame on us all. That is not to impugn the sincerity or motives of those in the British or any other Government who as roundly condemn and deeply deplore all that as I do.
        728
        However, today we are discussing peacekeeping and the United Nations. The credibility of the international community is at stake if that sort of thing can happen within our continent of Europe in 1993. We have only to look for a moment at the result of the Russian election today to realise just how unstable our continent is and how many more Bosnias are just waiting to happen. I could be rebuked for omitting to mention some of those places, such as Georgia and Azerbaijan, where they are already happening. If we cannot, within the next few months —the time scale is that short—create a more credible and effective peacekeeping operation within the United Nations, the portents are dire indeed.
        In a different context, hon. Members have referred today to Cyprus and the terrible problem that will remain until the Cyprus question is resolved, which could mean Greeks and Turks—two NATO allies—fighting each other. I remind the House that the same could happen in the Balkans if the shameful situation in Bosnia is not contained and we have war in Macedonia or Kosovo. If the Balkans go up in flames and Bulgaria is drawn in, Albania will be drawn in, and it is almost inevitable that Greece and Turkey will be drawn in on opposite sides. The stakes are as high as any that we have had to play for this century. How can we have a more effective United Nations peacekeeping operation?
        In asking that question, I make absolutely no criticism of the leadership, devotion or bravery of United Nations troops in general or of British troops in particular. They have acquitted themselves with outstanding distinction. However, they have been carrying out an operation with their hands tied. Although resolutions have been passed in the United Nations that would have allowed them to take deterrent action against Serbia, and against Serbs within Bosnia, those actions have not been taken.
        The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is not in his place at present, very bravely led a small group to Sarajevo. He told the House, as he told me privately, about watching the shells fired from Serbian placements into Sarajevo being counted by United Nations monitors, but nothing being done about them. We all know about the aid convoys that have been held up or turned back.
        Only the other day a grotesque story was brought to my attention. The South African Muslim community had paid for a 130-bed mobile hospital, which currently is in dock just outside Bosnia. Despite all the forms that have been filled in and all the money that has been paid to provide private transport and so on, for four or five months it has not been allowed through to where it is needed. Only 10 days ago I sent a fax about that to Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and many others have also interceded, but still the hospital is not in Mostar, where it should be.
        That sort of incident is an indictment of the effectiveness of the peacekeeping operation and can only be seen as such. The whole credibility of the United Nations is at stake. If we do not take action to ensure that the aid gets through, and if we do not have a massive airlift into Sarajevo this winter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said, hundreds of thousands of people could die from starvation and privation. It looks as though the winter will be very severe in a country where it is perfectly normal for temperatures to be below zero for week after week.
        I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that it is desperately important that there is a more effective

        729
        United Nations peacemaking and peacekeeping operation. Because the stakes are so high and because the things that could go wrong are legion, I suggest that the permanent members of the Security Council, of whom we are one, take the lead. This is far too important a subject merely to be on the agenda, even if it is permanently on the agenda. We need a summit meeting of the five leaders—or certainly four; I accept that China is in a different category.
        The Presidents of the United States, France and Russia and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom need to sit down together and talk about peacekeeping and peacemaking within the United Nations context. They are all both contributors and beneficiaries, actual and potential.
        Those who say to me that Bosnia is not a British or a European interest are talking dangerous nonsense. Of course it is a British and a European interest that peace should be brought to our continent and that the conflagration should not spread and become totally out of control. Define anything that is more in our interests and I will listen with amazement.
        During this period of good will, when parliaments will not be sitting, there is an opportunity—the beginning of a new year—for the big four to get together and to try to hammer out some guidelines for peace and to work out how they can be implemented. There is an opportunity to give a pledge on the standby arrangement for troops—referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) when he opened the debate so splendidly—that can be made available. It is a positive and realistic suggestion that I hope will be heeded because it is in the interests of all that it should be.
        The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee is not in his place, but I point out that the Government must pause and think very carefully about our defence expenditure. France has already done that. We have a good record, of which we have every right to be proud, of defending the interests of this country. The Government have no need to feel ashamed. However, we have cut too near the bone, and if we cut into the bone we will inhibit the effectiveness of the very matter that is the subject of our debate today—an effective international peacekeeping and peacemaking operation upon which, without wishing to sound over-dramatic, the very future of this planet depends.
        6.36 pm
        Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) spoke with feeling. I do not want to join those who make self-fulfilling prophecies, because the test of a prophet is whether his prophecy is fulfilled. However, the hon. Gentleman has underlined some important points and in particular has emphasised the necessity for clear thinking at this time. I wonder whether within two months the United Nations will have a programme in hand to guide us in future. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that in that programme a clear objective is required on the role of peacekeeping and, above all at this time, the role of peacemaking and intervention.
        I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that I am not convinced that his illustration of Northern Ireland was good guidance on how the United Nations could intervene. It is not a matter of occasional claims of lapses in human rights or alleged human rights; it is a pattern of procedure where there are clear abuses of human rights. I was interested recently to discover that in the
        730
        United States, the Irish green lobby said that the Brits were imprisoning Irish men in hell holes of concentration camps—yet when John Joe O'Docherty was extradited to the United Kingdom to serve his sentence and was asked by an American reporter what the prisons in Northern Ireland were like compared with those in the United States, he said that they were better because we care for our prisoners.
        Mr. Rogers: I certainly did not use Northern Ireland as an example of when or how the United Nations should intervene. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that the convention on human rights should be adopted and could be a plan for the United Nations to act on. I said that some people might want to invoke the convention as an argument for United Nations inteference in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I am glad that I gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to clarify the position. However, the record will show that the impression given was somewhat different. I understand his problem with reading financial statements and accounts. I have long since discovered that accountants are in a cabal of mysticism, concealing rather than revealing. We must probe to get answers at that level.
        We are all in debt to the right hon. Member for Guildford because of the way in which he guided our thinking with his lucid introduction of the Select Committee's report. I echo his tribute to the work of Britain's permament representatives in New York, including Sir David Hannay and his staff. I was a member of a recent parliamentary delegation to the United Nations that praised Jan Eliason. However, thereafter he resigned. That was a loss to the United Nations and I regret whatever was the cause of that happening. All members of our cross-party delegation were most impressed by the calibre of Mr. Eliason.
        Global security has become a problem. In that context, Britain is a medium-sized power with a developed sense of global responsibility. I would not want us to opt out of that responsibility but I believe that we must meet it realistically. The Government say that the United Kingdom recognises that the requirement for varied peacekeeping and intervention forces is likely to grow, yet our forces are being reduced under "Options for Change" and the cost of equipment is rising.
        I join the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee in pleading, as others have today, for a re-examination of United Kingdom forces. They are able to do the job required, whereas those of other countries cannot—particularly those relying on conscripted personnel with little experience of serving overseas or of facing danger. Most British service personnel have served abroad and confronted danger, and they expect to do so again.
        The hon. Member for Rhondda, I believe, referred to Mogadishu. I share his views, because the reaction of British troops and of the population of Northern Ireland when they saw the despicable treatment of two of our soldiers at Casement park contrasts starkly with the reaction of the American military and American people when they saw such events in Mogadishu. That is why I believe that our forces are the best equipped in the world to deal with that situation. They have 20 years' service there. Despite the pressures on them, the number of allegations against them that merit being pursued can be counted on the 20 digits that the average man has.
        Mr. Rogers: If I may correct the record, the reference to pictures of American corpses serving to bring home to the American people the situation in Somalia was made by the right hon. Member for Guildford.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful. I thought that I had identified the wrong speaker.
        The scope for non-military peacekeeping and intervention is considerable. In that context, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration need urgently to re-examine their organisation, numbers and priorities. I doubt, however, that non-governmental organisations would be doing a service to the United Nations if they were to take money earmarked for the UN budget. Certainly the UN would not want that to happen.
        We may pray that British forces will not be asked soon to take part in any large-scale amphibious peacekeeping or peacemaking operations, because we are still awaiting the new landing platform helicopter, which is not due for delivery until 1998. For the next five years, British amphibious capability will be threadbare—with potentially serious implications for United Kingdom peacekeeping and intervention forces.
        As to funding, United Nations member countries seem ready to will the end but not the means. More and more responsibility is placed on countries such as the United Kingdom that have played their part. It is regrettable that while the United States benefits from the seat of the UN being in New York, it has not paid its way. I understand that the UN could be bankrupt by the end of December as it awaits funds from Washington delayed by procedural problems. Member countries must face reality and pay their dues up front instead of being in arrears. I am not speaking specifically of CIS countries, which have many problems—but they are among the laggards, in common with Japan. There is a great need for common agreement on how UN operations will be funded.
        Reference was made to intelligencef gathering. Another major problem is operation and control. There is some evidence that UN headquarters in New York are locked at weekends. Is there a system for controlling operations then? We believe in democratic control of our forces. We acknowledge that they must act according to what is happening on the ground, but even then there should always be feedback to political control. In the absence of UN control, is NATO command and control used? Many countries are unhappy about that organisation's possible involvement. There is a problem with command and control, and with the way in which international contingents communicate.
        If we are to be involved in peacekeeping and intervention, we must maintain a mix and balance of forces. The United Nations must properly finance its operations, and its interventions must have a clear objective and a set of operating principles. Finally, there must be an effective command, control and communcations system. If we are to participate, we should stress that other nations must be prepared not only to make decisions that involve us but to put their money and forces where their mouths are.
        6.47 pm
        Sir Jim Spicer: We owe a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and to my hon. Friend
        732
        the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee for their contributions to this debate and for the way in which, over the past two or three years, they have led their Committees with such skill and dedication.
        This country has a proud record of working in support of the United Nations—Korea in the 1950s, Cyprus in the 1960s and 1970s, almost anywhere in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s, and Kuwait and Bosnia in the 1990. No other country has a record to equal our own.
        The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) were most disturbing, because he clearly pointed to the problems that the United Nations will face in the months and years ahead, in part due to the changing attitude of the United States towards its involvement in peacekeeping world wide. That is the main problem that we have to face. While we cannot say it was an easy ride from 1945 until 1988, it was relatively so. During that period, the superpowers were in a position to keep control of events. Otherwise, a conflagration would have followed, as surely as night follows day.
        We now have the collapse of one superpower, and the other seemingly prepared to go back on its natuaraal role and not become too involved. That is due to a sad situation in Somalia, as a result of which the United States has now said it will withdraw from Somalia on 31 March, no matter what happens.
        The future is not bright. We shall have to operate again, hopefully in support of the UN. However, does the UN have the will to perform the duties and functions which can only be performed by the UN? If not, we are in desperate trouble. One need look no further than the borders of the old Sovier Union, and to places such as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. We can see what might happen in the future if we are not careful and if we are not prepared to intervene as and when it is necessary.
        In that context, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State whether those newly emerging states are seen by the UN to be truly independenet. Are they also seen by the Foreign Office to be truly independenet or are they seen to be within the sphere of influence of the old Sovier Union? It seems to me that, while we may say that they are independent states and while we may stand up for them in the UN, what is happening on the ground tells a quite different story.
        It is quite right that, because we are talking mainly about Europe, we should discuss Bosnia at length. Most hon. Members have mentioned Bosnia, which has been the focal point of the debate. I will mention the situation in Azerbaijan. There are 7 million Azerbaijanis—1 million of those poor, unfortunate people are now refugees. They are living in squalor in tented camps and in conditions which, I would guess, are at least as bad as those which pertain in Bosnia and throughout other parts of former Yugoslavia.
        What do we, or the British public, know of the situation in Azerbaijan? We know little because the media do not focus on events in Azerbaijan. They focus on Bosnia, so the public do not know about Azerbaijan. Twenty per cent. of the territory of Azerbaijan is occupied by Armenia. The United Kingdom is one of the few countries to have made strong representations in the United Nations about that intolerable situation. I understand that the United Nations has passed the conduct of affairs to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, and the CSCE has visited the area.
        There is a United Nations representative in Baku. The poor chap is virtually alone and has minimal back-up. The

        733
        CSCE goes to Nagorno-Karabakh about once a quarter with a committee, and it then reports to the United Nations that the situation is intolerable. We say that we respect the territory and the rights of the Azerbaijani people to their own territory and that we stand by that, but nothing happens. Those 1 million people will remain in tents in the refugee camps in conditions at least as bad as, if not many times worse than, in Bosnia.
        What is happening is the first turn of the screw. The Russians have "switched on" the Armenians during the past few months in pursuit of their own imperial interests. I do not want to labour the point, but Liberal Democrats are now in a strong position in Russia, and they do not in any way conform with the Liberal Democrats in this House. However, they are now a potent force and their declared aim is to re-establish the Russian empire by hook or by crook. They will be in total concert with the military—and Yeltsin owes the military—so where do we go from here?
        What are we prepared to do if the Russians make up their minds to go back into Azerbaijan and insist on stationing Russian forces there again, as they are quite likely to do? Those are not just my words, and that is not just what I personally have seen in Azerbaijan. An article in The Economist last week was full of pessimism, making it quite clear that the Russian intention is to draw the border states back into the fold. However, that will not happen without active intervention from other parties.
        If there is a risk of a major flare-up, surely it is in that possible conflict area on the borders of Russia, Turkey and Iran. Who knows who could be drawn into that situation? Does the United Nations have the will to intervene there in a way in it is not prepared to intervene elsewhere? If not, do the United States, Britain and France have the will to resume their old role and to act—hopefully under the United Nations umbrella—as and when necessary to keep the peace in the world? It is in our interest and in the interest of many other western countries to do just that.
        I will make two final points. First, I am delighted that stand-by forces have been mentioned. However, if we are to have them, the composition and the equipment of those forces must be absolutely right. We still do not have the "mix and match" right within our armed forces for the type of operations in which we are likely to be involved. Naturally, as a Member of Parliament representing a west country constituency, I have to say that it is high time that the EH101 and Apache helicopters were ordered to support those troops.
        Secondly, the worst thing that we can do within the UN is to look around and take troops from any country, whatever their quality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) will know only too well from his visits to Bosnia the horrifying stories about the indiscipline and the general state of disarray of some of those contingents. If the UN is to play a part in the world in the future—it will be a tough role to play—for goodness' sake let us make sure that only forces which are disciplined and capable and under a good command structure can take part in operations mounted on behalf of the UN and, most particularly, where our own troops are to be engaged.
        6.58 pm
        Mr. Tony Banks: I thought that the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) was a little unkind to suggest that there was any similarity
        734
        between the Liberal Democrats of this country and the Russian Liberal Democrats. I have not seen the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) ordering his troops into tanks and rolling those tanks towards London. I suspect that we will not see that happening, either from Russia or from the west country.
        I will share the time available to me with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). I am grateful for a few minutes to speak, because I had the opportunity to visit the UN last week as a member of a small delegation from the Council of Europe. We met Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the President of the General Assembly, officials and ambassadors.
        I came away with three distinct feelings. I was optimistic to know that the UN played such a central role in the world and that its position was assured in that respect. I was encouraged by the consensual feeling and general acceptance of the fact that the UN needed to be changed and that there was a willingness to achieve change so that it could deal with the greater challenges after the cold war. However, I was also pessimistic, because that requires resources and the complaint was that resources were simply inadequate.
        There has been much talk here, as there was in New York, about the role of regional groupings. I suppose that we are fortunate in Europe to have a super-abundance of regional organisations like the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO, the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the European Union and the European Free Trade Association. However, there is a feeling that some of the activities of the European regional organisations are overlapping and duplicating the activities of the United Nations, and vice versa.
        Given that there are finite resources, it is essential to achieve as much agreement as possible between the various organisations in respect of their functions, as that will save money on behalf of all the organisations. I understand that there is to be a Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations. The Council of Europe, with its responsibility for the Court of Human Rights, has great experience, expertise and knowledge of that subject. It would make sense to use the Council of Europe in terms of human rights in Europe.
        There may not be a great demand for such expertise in western Europe at the moment — although I can think of one case, in which I do not want to become involved now, in respect of which human rights are undoubtedly being infringed. However, there is a great demand in eastern Europe for the services of those who can bring a greater appreciation of human rights. The Council of Europe could certainly do that.
        The Council of Europe also has expertise in building democratic security. It can help to build democratic and political institutions in eastern Europe. It has a great deal of knowledge and it makes a great deal of sense that the United Nations should use that knowledge. It should not be duplicated.
        I had an interesting discussion with the organiser of the United Nation's electoral assistance unit. The United Nations is facing a much greater demand for electoral assistance as countries move from totalitarianism to the democratic uplands. They need advice and assistance. Certain parts of eastern Europe require advice and assistance on how to set up political parties. That is not

        735
        something in which the United Nations can become involved, but national Parliaments and regional organisations can certainly become involved in it.
        The need for greater co-ordination in the observance of elections clearly emerged from our discussions. The elections in Russia were almost a farce. It seemed that the voters in Russia would find their way to the ballot box impeded by large numbers of observers from a range of international organisations, national Parliaments and Churches.
        It is essential that there should be co-ordination. People should know why they are going to observe elections and their efforts should be co-ordinated by umbrella organisations. We can obviously provide such assistance through regional organisations such as the CSCE and the Council of Europe. If I had turned up to cast my vote in Moscow and had found the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) blocking my way and acting as an undertaker, that would have caused me wry amusement. I am jolly glad that it was exceedingly cold for him.
        With regard to peacekeeping, clearly the United Nations has too many problems to deal with at the moment. It is involved in 23 situations. Many hon. Members have said that we hear a lot about Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia because of media attention. However, there are many areas about which we are receiving no information. Thousands of people are being killed in Angola. The whole of the south, including large parts of Africa, is largely being ignored in this post-cold war situation. That must be regretted.
        Media attention also places pressure on the United Nations to solve problems immediately. That cannot be done, as we have seen in Cyprus, where United Nations peacekeeping forces have been located for some 26 or 28 years.
        All the peacekeeping operations we become involved in—no matter how many—will cost money. It is obscene that the world was prepared to spend $1 billion a day during the cold war in preparation for war, but is not prepared to spend a tiny fraction of that amount now to try to clear up the mess caused by the cold war and to provide the United Nations with the resources to do just that.
        In his "Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General suggested that there should be rapid response forces which he described as specific units. Such units are provided for under article 43 of chapter VII of the charter. As we have included powers for such provision in the United Nations, and as only now can the United Nations fulfil its proper functions as they were designed in respect of the Security Council, it seems rather short sighted for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, endorsed by the Government, to say that it is not prepared to support the Secretary-General's call for specific units.
        Such units would give the United Nations the ability to respond rapidly to situations before they develop into the kind of tragedy that we have seen in Bosnia. It is short-sighted of the Government and the Foreign Affairs Committee to have dismissed the idea—if not out of hand—and not to have gone along with it. I hope that there will be an opportunity for second thoughts. I believe that that is the way to make the United Nations peacekeeping and peace enforcing machinery far more effective. I will finish now and give my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South some extra time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) gives time to no one. I call Mr. Gapes.
        7.6 pm
        Mr. Mike Gapes: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for allowing me to make an edited version of my speech, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me.
        Reference has been made to the change from the optimistic prognosis of a few years ago to the current gloomy view about the UN and the problems that it faces today. I am by nature an optimist, but I have become very pessimistic over recent weeks about the future of the UN and the great demands that it faces.
        The Secretary-General's report, "Agenda for Peace", refers to those demands and states:
        "nations and peoples increasingly are looking to the United Nations for assistance for keeping the peace—and holding it responsible when this cannot be so".
        However, it is not fair to hold the UN, as an institution, responsible. The nation states refuse to give the financial, organisational, political and military means to the UN to enable it to do the job. It is not the UN's fault if it cannot do the job. It is not being allowed to do that job.
        I spoke at a school in my constituency this morning. A young Muslim boy told me that we were practising double standards in Bosnia. He said that we were quite happy to intervene in Kuwait, but we were not prepared to do that in Bosnia. I believe that he is wrong. I argued forcefully that the two situations are very different. However, it is clear that there is a substantial body of opinion, both outside and inside this country, that holds that boy's view very strongly.
        If there is a peace agreement in Bosnia—we know that the prospects for that are not good—and if the meeting on 22 December leads to a breakthrough, 50,000 troops will be required to enforce that agreement. From my conversations last week with leading people in the United States Congress and leading Democratic Senators, I am extremely doubtful whether the American Congress will agree to give President Clinton the 25,000 troops necessary for a United States contribution, which I was told a month ago in NATO, would be required in respect of the 50,000 troops.
        The United States, Britain, France and perhaps the Benelux countries will provide those troops. If we do not receive the 25,000 American troops, there will be no way that European Union countries alone will ever find the necessary number. Even if we have a peace agreement, national Governments, for national reasons, will not provide the forces to make such an agreement stick.
        The Foreign Affairs Committee's report contains 70 recommendations. Regrettably, I do not have time to mention even seven of them. The Foreign Office's response is woefully inadequate. It does not even refer to several recommendations. It is time that the House had a proper response from the Government. When we produce detailed reports which entail months of work and lots of travel and cost the House and the British taxpayer thousands of pounds, the Government peremptorily dismiss or cursorily answer the points that are made. We need far better than that.
        It is time that all of us recognised the importance of the international dimension in our affairs. It is not adequate to

        737
        have a three-hour debate on an issue of such importance. We need a much longer debate so that we can examine the proposals in detail and make an informed decision.
        7.10 pm
        The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The fact that we found it necessary to lay the supplementary estimates and, indeed, the important speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) emphasise the great importance that we all now attach to peacekeeping within the United Nations. Indeed, the number of troops deployed and the increase in costs that we have seen are powerful evidence of the expansion in peacekeeping. I shall provide a few figures to demonstrate that point.
        In 1991, there were 10,000 troops deployed in peacekeeping; in 1992, the figure increased to 44,000 and at present the number stands at 75,000. As for costs, which are another measure of the increase, in 1991, they were $482 million, in 1992, they were $1.5 billion, and in 1993, they were an estimated $3 billion. The United Kingdom now has 2,800 troops deployed in peacekeeping operations. As the House will know, our contribution to United Nations peacekeeping, exclusive of our own troop costs, is more than 6 per cent. of the assessed cost. In 1992, our assessed contribution to United Nations peacekeeping costs was $93.5 million. Those are extremely substantial sums.
        The Committee's report, which has been spoken to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, is a very important contribution to the debate. Notwithstanding the changes that have undoubtedly taken place during drafting, many of the report's conclusions remain highly relevant and correct. I share, incidentally, the feeling of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that there is increasing unwillingness within the United States, for the reasons that he mentioned, to become involved in peacekeeping operations, and that causes me at least very grave concern.
        There are a number of comments and conclusions within the report with which I strongly agree. To start with, I do not think that one should or can expect the United Nations to act wherever there is a crisis. Most certainly, there have to be criteria. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on the need for criteria, and that was spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly in September.
        Indeed, there is also a need for us to determine our own criteria when trying to determine in which operations we wish to become involved. That will certainly take account of national interest and whether we have the right mix of forces for any particular task, and how the particular peacekeeping ranks in priority terms with other national defence commitments to be judged at the time.
        Mr. Rogers: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises a very important point if he is saying that Her Majesty's Government will pick and choose where they will participate in United Nations peacekeeping operations. In their reply to the report, the Government said:
        "a United Nations peacekeeping operation should not be mandated unless there is a reasonable chance of success."
        It is a rather crude way of putting it, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that we should opt for easy operations and leave messy ones to others?
        Mr. Hogg: I did not say that; nor does it stand up to analysis. We have about 2,400 troops in Bosnia. Although that is not a peacekeeping operation in the conventional sense, it is an extremely difficult one. Inevitably, one must pick and choose between operations. About 18 operations are being conducted by United Nations peacekeeping forces at the moment, and we are a party to three or four of them. I do not think that it would be right to participate substantially in more than that number. One has to allocate one's own priorities.
        Another point that one needs to make is that a number of other organisations can be involved in peacekeeping. There was a very interesting debate in Rome, in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, about the circumstances in which the Commonwealth of Independent States, in particular Russian forces, can operate in the CIS under the authority and with the consent of the CSCE.
        I agree strongly with the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford about the need for improved control and command mechanisms. That point was made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South, as well. I agree, too, with the overall conclusion that it would be an error to allocate or to earmark forces on a permanent standby basis to the United Nations. That point received endorsement from my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee.
        We should also keep well in mind the importance, where appropriate, of trying to intervene early in developing crises by pre-emptive measures. That is the importance, perhaps, of the missions that have been sent by the CSCE to various countries within the former Soviet Union. It is also the importance of, for example, the appointment of the CSCE high commissioner on minorities or, to take the point of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights. By pre-emptive action of various kinds it is possible to reduce the risk of conflict.
        Mr. Tony Banks: It is very difficult, is it not, to respond rapidly when the Secretary-General has to ask Security Council countries or other countries to provide troops? The whole point of having units on standby and allocated was that the Secretary-General would not have to do that and that the troops could move in very quickly.
        Mr. Hogg: That is right up to a point, but the problem that was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is that it is jolly difficult to know exactly the nature of the requirement on the ground that one will encounter in a rapid deployment. One could have an awful lot of people hanging around doing awfully little and with skills which are not wholly appropriate if one opted for that earmarking or standby approach. I would not commend it, and it would involve substantial control and command arrangements which we simply have not yet come to terms with.
        I now refer to some specific points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford expressed grave concern—I understand why—about why our expert was not elected to the advisory committee for administration and budgetary questions. That was a disappointment to us. It is not, however, in any sense fatal to our capacity to influence decisions in that respect, not least because that committee

        739
        advises the fifth committee. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have our people on the fifth committee to which the advisory committee is but an advisory committee.
        The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) did not like our presentation of the accounts— he was supported by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. He has a point, and I will see whether we can do something to improve the accounts. The hon. Member for Rhondda went on to say that the United Nations should intervene more readily in circumstances where national governments are not currently meeting a need in the country involved. That is an important point.
        To some extent, we have already been pushing the frontiers forward in, for example, north Iraq and south Iraq. However, one must stand back and say that the actions of the United Nations will always represent and reflect to some degree an assessment of strategic interest on the part of countries in the Security Council. There must be genuine interests at stake which engage their concern sufficiently to enable one to rally a consensus around an interventionist policy. Many countries have grave doubts of principle—most notably China and India —about the intervention by the United Nations in the internal affairs of other countries.
        Mr. Rogers: I do not understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means. Is he saying that, unless there is a specific national interest, Britain will not contribute to peacekeeping activities?
        Mr. Hogg: I did not say that. Hon. Members must realise that the Security Council of the United Nations is in a sense an aggregate of independent states which will certainly determine where their national interests lie when deciding how they will vote in the Security Council. That is inevitable and right.
        There are many countries where there are grave issues and discords, and serious civil wars, which would justify intervention, if we judged them exclusively on moral terms. However, we will not intervene and there is no pressure to do so. One only has to say "Tadjikistan" to oneself to realise the force of what I am saying. The majority of countries on the Security Council will not wish to deploy troops in Tadjikistan, notwithstanding the fact that the crisis area is a grave one.
        The hon. Member for Rhondda—he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster —said that there is no real alternative to the United Nations and it is an error to look at alternative institutions. I go a long way with him, but not quite all the way because there are regional organisations that have an important role to play. We should not underestimate that role. The most important organisation in this context is the CSCE in the field of pre-emptive action—I mentioned the appointment of the CSCE High Commissioner of Minorities—and in missions designed to ascertain facts or promote settlements, for example, in Nagorno Karabakh, the Baltic states or Moldova.
        Earlier, I referred to the Rome conference. There may be a possibility that the CSCE will be an instrument for approving peacekeeping operations by CIS forces in CIS countries. That matter must still be examined.
        I shall answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West about the status of all CIS
        740
        countries. Those countries are all sovereign independent states and we regard them as such. We do not in any sense regard them as part of Russia or as countries over which Russia has some right of intervention. They are absolutely independent states.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) spoke about Bosnia—and he was right to do so. I agree that the position in Bosnia is likely to get much worse this winter unless there is an early peace agreement. That emphasises the importance of the Geneva talks, the need for Serbs to make greater concessions on land and, above all—having regard to my rather bleak assessment of probabilities—the need to keep humanitarian routes open.
        My hon. Friend raised a specific point about war crimes. He said that the republics in the former Yugoslavia should use their own law to try people for war crimes. I agree with that, but one does not need to invoke the Geneva convention; most people can be tried under the domestic legislation of the individual republic.
        My hon. Friend has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with a proposal that we should start a mission. I have noted what my hon. Friend said—it is an interesting idea. We will certainly look at the suggestion, but I can give no commitments at this stage.
        I agree with the proposition of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that the end of the cold war has made intervention easier and I understand the reasons that caused him to say that. I also agree with his broad proposition that we should stick to existing frontiers, notwithstanding the fact that many of them have been drawn in a fairly arbitrary and brutal manner. If we do not stick with those frontiers, what else do we have? To be honest, the principle of self-determination would lead to the fragmentation of the former Soviet Union and much of central and eastern Europe.
        We must stick to the frontiers, subject to two provisos. First, where there is a genuine agreement of the respective parties to change the frontiers, so be it. It is not for us to stand in the way of genuine agreement. Secondly, I want to pick up one word used by the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know whether he meant it in the sense that it is usually meant. He said that we should "defend" existing frontiers. I start from the proposition that we should stick with existing frontiers, but I do not believe that the international community should go to fight on every occasion.
        For example, one only has to consider the case of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, to see the truth of this. How many hon. Members think that the international community should go to war with Armenia? Yet so far as we can judge, Armenia has invaded Azerbaijan and expanded the Lutchin corridor substantially. I have that major reservation, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman's broad proposition.
        The hon. Member for Western Isles and two of his colleagues came to see me about Sarajevo airport. I wish to ensure that we have the maximum use of Sarajevo airport, for all the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Following that meeting, I made an inquiry and an RAF officer went to Sarajevo to make a further inspection. We believe that all that can be done is being done to increase the use of the airport. A lot of work is being done on the runway and that is being expedited, but it is a small, ill-equipped airport and the problem is one of handling. To tell the truth, it is much better to rely on road transport when it can be managed,

        741
        although we will try to maximise the use of Sarajevo airport. I disagree with the proposition that we are not doing our best now.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster made an important speech. I am grateful for his support and I agree with much of what he said. He said that we should not earmark forces for peacekeeping, we need to change the training of forces and we should give a high status to peacekeeping operations.
        I felt that the hon. Member was a bit unfair about Cyprus. It is true that we have been running down our forces in Cyprus—we still have a considerable number there; I think the number is 475 troops—but the running down reflected our assessment of diminishing risk. The operation has been continuing for a long time and we must accept that other countries have a burden to carry in this matter and it is not right to look to a continuous United Kingdom presence. To be honest, I do not feel embarrassed about the matter.
        The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) made a number of points. I thank him for his kind words about the Foreign Office staff. They are much appreciated and will be passed on to the staff, even though they come from the hon. Gentleman.
        A more important point relates to assets and prisons. Absolutely no deals were made, none whatever. That is not something that we would want to do and we did not do it. On the sequestration of assets, the position is that the United Nations Security Council resolution 778 permits member states to sequestrate Iraqi frozen assets related to proceeds of sale of Iraqi petroleum or petroleum products, paid for by or on behalf of a purchaser on or after 6 August 1990. The Treasury considers that approximately £186,000 of Central Bank of Iraq frozen assets held by the Bank of England related to such proceeds of sale, and the Bank considered, too, that there were no third-party claims against them.
        Notice has been given of our intention to transfer—not yet done—to the escrow account, which will be used for a
        742
        variety of purposes. Thirty per cent. goes to the compensation commission and the remainder goes to a variety of purposes, some humanitarian—some probably do not fall strictly under that heading—including food, medicines, the United Nations Special Commission, United Nations guards for convoys and the like. The Iraqi interest section now in the United Kingdom is aware of that intention and has been asked to make its comments.
        Mention was made of the plight of Iraqis—perfectly true, their plight is awful. It is also perfectly true that, under Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, Saddam Hussein has a capacity to solve that problem. Those resolutions enable him to sell oil to a very substantial value, the proceeds of which will go to a variety of purposes, including the relief of humanitarian suffering in his own country. He has chosen not to do that.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) was entirely right when he said that it is Saddam Hussein who must take the responsibility for what is happening.
        Mr. Galloway rose—
        Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I shall not give way, as I have only one more minute. I apologise.
        I shall now comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said about Bosnia. His position is well known and he has held to it consistently. he will forgive me if I say that, broadly speaking, I disagree with him. I particularly disagree when he says that we are all to blame and that it is a disgrace to which we all are party. It is not. It is a disgrace to which the active warring parties are party, not the rest of us. What is more, if one dilutes that proposition, one relieves the warring parties of responsibility. I can see that Mr. Deputy Speaker is about to call me to a stop, so I must finish.
        The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

      Class IV, Vote 2

        Aerospace Support
        [Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1992-93 on the British Aerospace Industry (House of Commons Paper No. 563) and the Fourth Special Report from the Committee of Session 1992-93, containing the Government's Observations thereon (House of Commons Paper No. 945.)]
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on regional development grants, exchange risk and other losses, selective assistance to individual industries and firms, UK contributions arising from its commitments under the International Natural Rubber Agreement, a strategic mineral stockpile, support for the aerospace and shipbuilding industries, assistance to redundant steel and coal workers, for expenditure related to petroleum licensing and royalty, for other payments and for loans to trading funds.
        7.32 pm
        Mr. Richard Caborn: It is pleasing to be able to debate the report on aerospace, the third report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I shall put on the record our thanks to our staff, the Clerk, Mr. Gerhold, and his staff, who worked so hard in producing the report, and to our two advisers, Keith Hayward, professor of international relations at Staffordshire university, and Professor Garel Rhys, head of economics at Cardiff business school at the university of Wales. I also thank the Minister for sending me a letter at 6 o'clock this evening in response to some of the questions—I am sure that he is listening—that arose from the Government's reply. I do not think that the Minister takes us further forward on the points that we raised, but if my interpretation is wrong, I have no doubt that he will correct me when he replies later this evening, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        The aerospace industry is that rarity in the United Kingdom—a high technology industry with added value in which the United Kingdom is one of the world leaders and has a large trade surplus. We have the third largest aerospace industry in the western world. We have one of only three prime manufacturers of civil aero-engines, an airframe company, which has the fifth largest aerospace turnover, and a strong aerospace equipment sector. I am sure that hon. Members will not need reminding of the importance of the British aerospace industry: a turnover of some £10 billion-plus; a consistently positive trade balance, amounting to £2.5 billion in 1992; 9 per cent. of all the United Kingdom's exports of manufactures; and employment and training of a highly skilled work force. Unfortunately, all that has diminished. There were roughly 250,000 employees in the early 1980s, decreasing to about 150,00 in 1992. There has also been a lot of technology spin-off to other sectors of our industry.
        Given the strength of the industry, why was the Select Committee somewhat worried about it? Some argued that the industrial problems which have occurred, including the difficulties encountered by British Aerospace, are the result
        744
        of a severe cyclical downturn in civil aerospace and a longer-term decline in defence sales, which are affecting all our overseas competitors.
        The real problem is structural. It is to do with the very long time scales in the aerospace industry for developing new products and receiving a return on investment. That is the most distinctive feature of the industry, which underlies the whole of the Select Committee's report. British Aerospace told us that the period from designing an aircraft to recovering the investment can be as long as 20 years, and that the design depends on technology development before that. Time scales are even longer for aero-engines. Dowty gave us an example of propellers based on technology that had taken some 25 years to develop. Dowty also said that it was making supplies for the Spitfire, but that is probably the exception, not the rule.
        Those long time scales mean that the United Kingdom industry's current position now is the result of investment in the past 20 years or so and does not necessarily mean that all will continue to be well. The industry's future depends on the investment and research in technology acquisition being made now.
        There is growing evidence that the United Kingdom industry is losing ground. Between 1980 and 1991, growth in United Kingdom industry turnover—using constant prices—was only 1.5 per cent., compared with 3.3 per cent. in the United States, 4 per cent. in France, 8 per cent. in Germany and 8.5 per cent. in Japan. In 1991, unfortunately, we were overtaken by France. The industry is worried that its present research and technology acquisition may be insufficient to keep up with its competitors, which receive greater Government assistance.
        That was the reason for the Committee's inquiry—to examine the state of the industry and to see whether the worries about its future were justified. We concentrated on civil aerospace, but we are well aware that the civil and defence sectors are, to a large extent, interdependent. The Government replied to our report but, unfortunately, failed to answer many of the main questions raised.
        Another distinct feature of the aerospace industry is the close involvement of Governments. One obvious reason is the strong defence interests. Another is those long time scales, which make it difficult to finance investment in the usual ways. Another is the belief by Governments that the aerospace industry has a strategic importance as a high-technology industry with spin-offs to other sectors.
        Sir Michael Marshall: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Committee and its report. Will he pick up the thread regarding space activity which is mentioned in the report? I recognise that the Committee did not feel able to examine the matter in detail, but it made the point about linkage between aerospace and space, particularly on the technology spin-off, the convergence of civil and military and the need, with the peace dividend, to shift more into space activities. Does he agree that that is something to which the Government should return, even though the Committee was not able to do so?
        Mr. Caborn: That is the point. We were not able to investigate that matter. There is a synergy of activity that needs investigating. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that there is a spin-off, which I think is extremely important to the industry. Unfortunately, the Committee did not have time to go into that aspect, although we refer to it in the report. In practice, the international aerospace market is a

        745
        global industry, but it is not a free market. Our industry is competing against heavily subsidised foreign competition, although our Government recognise the distinctiveness of aerospace by providing launch aid for new products and by having a separate civil aircraft research and demonstration programme. We acknowledge that. However, the Government do not do enough to enable our industry, with its acknowledged technical excellence, to compete on equal terms in world markets.
        Foreign Governments rarely advertise the full extent of the help that they give their aerospace industries, but two points are worth emphasising—the massive state aid assistance towards research and technology acquisition in the United States and the considerable assistance that has built up the German industry. According to the DTI's figures, the German industry has received three times as much launch aid as the UK industry in recent years. That injection of support resulted in Germany's turnover doubling between 1985 and 1989.
        It is also interesting to note a document called "Statement of Position of Future Aid for Aviation Research and Technology from the Federal Government", which says:
        "The Federal Government sees an efficient German aircraft industry as an important contribution to Germany's economy. It welcomes international and, particularly, European cooperation by the German aircraft industry and its contributions to joint programes.
        The German aircraft industry can only contribute to competitive European aircraft industry if it maintains and constantly develops its already high level of technology capability… A statement of position on future aid for aviation research and technology will he established by early 1994 and a decision will be taken on a concept of aid to aviation research and technology and about the relevant financing."
        Let us look at a statement made by the President of the United States entitled "Technology for America's Economic Growth, A New Direction to Build Economic Strength". The main figures in that statement are startling by any standards. Clinton's technology proposals for the period 1994 to 1997 will involve a budget increase of $17 billion. Inevitably, a large proportion of that extra money will find its way into the American aeronautical industry. The Clinton report specificallly calls for
        "increasing research on civil aviation technologies, including an examination of the economic, marketing, safety, and noise aspects of advanced aircraft. We will also support advanced in-flight space and ground-based command, navigation, weather prediction, and control systems. US aeronautical, research and development facilities infrastructure such as wind tunnels will also be revitalised."
        In addition, aerospace companies have been the main beneficiaries of the awards announced thus far under the Clinton technology reinvestment project, the 1993 budget of which was $472 million. Compare that with what happens in this country.
        For those reasons, the Committee believes that there is a serious problem and that some changes in policy are needed. Obviously, Government action is not enough on its own. It is essential for the industry to improve its productivity. It is doing so, and we were impressed by its progress. International collaboration is increasingly important as the cost of developing new products rises.
        We examined a number of collaborative ventures, such as the highly successful one between Rolls-Royce and BMW. However, collaboration and increased productivity are not sufficient to maintain a competitive United Kingdom industry. Unless our firms maintain their technological edge, they will not be able to attract the best
        746
        partners and the best terms for collaboration. I make it clear to the Minister that what we have taken to the negotiating table on all collaborative deals has been not a cheque but our technology. The House should take that seriously.
        The Committee report focuses on four sectors, the first of which is launch aid for developing new products. That is not a subsidy, as has sometimes been claimed. The money is repayable with interest, as the product is sold. Occasionally, sales have been too low but, at the moment, the Government are receiving more money than they are paying out. According to the DTI, the purpose of launch aid is
        "to remedy a deficiency in the market arising from the reluctance or inability of companies or institutions to finance the heavy deployment cost of new aircraft products, since their return is subject to high risk and can be made only over the very long term".
        Applicants have to demonstrate that a project is commercially and technically viable, that the Government will receive an 8 per cent. return and that, without that aid, the project would not otherwise go ahead.
        It is unfortunate, therefore, that, when our report was produced, the Financial Times editorial of 22 July was somewhat ignorant of the facts of launch aid. It said:
        "Yesterday it served up a similar recipe for the aerospace sector: a five-fold increase to £100m in government subsidies; more generous aid to launch new products; and possible additional hand-outs to help companies convert from military to civil products."
        Let me quote the example of Rolls-Royce, which wrote to me yesterday. It said:
        "Funds received under this scheme"—
        under launch aid—
        "are not only repayable, but also carry a requirement to generate a real rate of return for the Government. In the case of Rolls-Royce, the Company has, since 1972, received nearly £500m in launch aid but no new launch aid has been provided after 1986. By the year 2000 we expect to have repaid 660m to the Government. The taxpayer is therefore deriving a significant return from this programme, whilst ensuring that the aerospace industry continues to generate wider economic benefits for the UK in the form of employment and exports."
        I hope that the author of that Financial Times editorial will take note of what Rolls-Royce says.
        Mr. Michael Stern: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that existing launch aid programmes do not carry the element of subsidy but are set out on purely commercial terms. I hope that he will therefore explain what may have given rise to that editorial —the conclusion of his report, which suggested that terms for the repayment of the launch aid should be drastically eased.
        Mr. Caborn: We said that in the context of the wider area in which our aerospace industry is playing. Let us cast an eye at our major European competitors. For example, although the Federal Republic of Germany gives launch aid, it does not demand the return that we demand in the United Kingdom, so that money is fed back into the industry. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read our report carefully, he will find the answer to his question.
        We made one major recommendation about launch aid—that the DTI should adopt a more positive attitude towards equipment makers, and should take into account the size and resources of equipment suppliers when assessing whether launch aid was needed. The DTI told us that there was no ban on equipment makers receiving launch aid. However, no equipment maker has done so since 1981. Our evidence showed that the DTI was wrong

        747
        to believe that equipment makers were necessarily much better able to obtain a commercial return within a reasonable time than makers of airframes or aero-engines could. For example, according to the Electronic Engineering Association, it typically takes 10 years for avionics systems to achieve a profit. Market failings apply to equipment as much as to airframes and aero-engines. The Government's reply repeats the arguments that we profoundly disputed.
        Launch aid for the larger civil aircraft has typically been 50 to 60 per cent., but it is now restricted by the agreement between the EC and the United States to 33 per cent., and it may be reduced further as a result of the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade—we hope to see an end to them soon. Thus, the direct support on which Europe has concentrated will be severely curtailed.
        The Americans responded by providing indirect support instead, in the form of assistance towards research and development. The agreement limits that to 3 per cent. of the civil aircraft industry's annual commercial turnover in the country concerned and to 4 per cent. of the annual commercial turnover of any one firm. However, indirect support is far harder to monitor and control than direct support, so the American industry may have an advantage over European industries.
        To be effective, any increase in support for most parts of the aerospace industry will need to be in the form of indirect support for research and technology acquisition. It was particularly fortunate that the DTI's aviation committee produced its national strategic technology acquisition plan, known as NSTAP, shortly before we began our inquiry. The purpose of NSTAP was to identify the technologies that the aviation committee believed United Kingdom industry would need during the next two decades and to sort out priorities.
        Category 1 was the technologies on which the industry's future competitive edge will depend, such as advanced wing design. Categories 2 and 3 were less central but still important. Those could, if necessary, be acquired through collaboration whereas category 1 technologies needed to be developed by the United Kingdom alone. I stress that this is an area that is not clear in the report. If we are to take technology to the negotiating table for collaborative deals, category 1 must have the type of support that is rightly demanded by the industry.
        NSTAP is not about picking winners but about developing a range of enabling technologies that the United Kingdom industry can incorporate into competitive products. It can be regarded as an early technological foresight exercise.
        NSTAP also discusses ways of increasing the effectiveness of research and technology expenditure, such as organising it within a clearly defined national strategy. The Committee attached great importance to NSTAP as a way of maintaining the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's aerospace industry.
        NSTAP did not come with a price tag, but the industry's estimate is that it would require £90 million to £100 million a year from the Government over a 10-year period. That sum would need to be matched by an equivalent amount from the industry. That is more likely to be forthcoming for a collaborative effort such as the ones described in NSTAP.
        748
        Unfortunately, that sum compares with only £22.5 million spent on the DTI's civil aircraft research and development programme in the present year. In 1993 prices, £85 million was spent in 1974. One can extrapolate from that information the fact that the current net return to the Treasury from the aerospace industry is the result of the investments made some 10 or 20 years ago. According to Dowty, £90 million to £100 million is the minimum necessary to keep us ahead in the race.
        We made two linked recommendations—that the Government should make a full assessment of the expenditure on research and technology acquisition that they believe is necessary to maintain the industry's technological competitiveness and that they should increase their funding of aerospace research and technology acquisition to a level that is sufficient to maintain the industry's technological competitiveness. We want the Government to benchmark their funding of the industry against that provided by foreigners. That is not an unreasonable request.
        The Government's response has been disappointing. Although they state that they are adopting the priorities set out in NSTAP, they are simply maintaining the existing level of funding. They have failed to reply to our recommendation about assessing how much funding is needed to maintain the industry's competitiveness. They state:
        "priorities must be set between the various demands of industry and the economy as a whole."
        Of course they must, but how can priorities be set unless the Government have first found out what is needed? Either present funding is sufficient to sustain the industry or it is not.
        If the Government can show that funding is sufficient, there is no problem. If they cannot, either funding must be increased or we must resign ourselves to the British aerospace industry slowly losing its competitiveness, with all the consequences that that involves. It is essential that we find out what is required to maintain competitiveness so that we know which path the United Kingdom is following.
        As to the third major aspect of the report, the Government's greatest impact on the aerospace industry is through defence procurement, and I am pleased to see the Minister here this evening. Our report was chiefly concerned with the civil sector, but all the major United Kingdom companies produce for both civil and defence markets, and much of the technology is common to both. Throughout the world, overheads have tended to be borne by the military work. We therefore looked closely at the MOD's procurement practices.
        Until the early 1980's, much defence procurement was undertaken without competition through preferred contractors, and development was largely on a cost-plus basis. Since 1983, there has been a more commercial approach, with a much higher proportion of competitively let contracts. That has clearly had advantages. According to the MOD, it has saved not only money but sharpened the defence industry's commercial edge.
        That approach was strongly criticised by many of our witnesses and it contrasts strongly with the procurement policies in other industries. The cost-plus approach and competititve tendering are not the only ways of organising procurement; there is also the partnership approach which is associated most strongly with Rover and Nissan in the car industry. No one suggests that Rover and Nissan are ripped off by their suppliers. They give their suppliers a

        749
        hard time, but it helps them to improve their performance and offers them a long-term relationship, provided they continue to meet standards and targets.
        Only two weeks ago, my colleagues visited Rover and heard about the change in relation that is now one of the jewels in our manufacturing crown. Only four or five years ago, Rover would get six or seven suppliers around a table, get a big stick, beat them on the head and ask them whether they could reduce their prices by 2p. Instead, they would knock them down by 3p, but Rover had more rejects and defects on motor cars coming off the line. Now Rover and Nissan have long-term relationships and negotiate contracts with their suppliers of between five and 15 years. That brings stability to the industry. The results are not only better and cheaper components for Rover and Nissan but a vastly more competitive motor components industry.
        One cannot necessarily transfer the same sort of relationship in full to defence procurement, but one might reasonably suspect the MOD to see what it can learn from successful innovations in other areas, and the Committee recommended that it does so instead of leaving it to the National Audit Office to examine its procurement issues. It would be helpful if the Minster would inform the House whether "partnership sourcing" is part of the terms of reference for the NAO examination.
        The Committee was also dissatisfied with the way in which the MOD conducts its procurement. In questions to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and civil servants, it became clear that recommendations made by officials were based solely on the defence aspect, and that other factors, such as the industrial consequence of decisions, were simply drawn to the attention of Ministers.
        The Minister showed some sympathy with the argument that wider civil interests should be taken into account rather than exclusively military interests. If that is to be done, consideration of the wider issues, such as the long-term strength of related industries such as civil aerospace, should be built into the procurement process from the start, and we recommend accordingly. The Government's reply does little more than describe existing practices.
        The fourth major aspect of the Committee's report was a call for the Government
        "to set out in much greater detail than hitherto the overall policy framework and view of the industry's future which it intends to guide individual decisions affecting the United Kingdom aerospace industry."
        That is nothing to do with the Government interfering in industrial decisions, or extending their role in the industry. It would not necessarily mean any extra spending. We are seeking a more coherent approach by the Government in areas in which they already make decisions— on research support, launch aid, procurement, international collaboration, export promotion and training.
        That would need to be based on a view, developed in consultation with the industry, of where the United Kingdom industry's competitive strengths lie and how they can be maintained and extended. The benefits would be more consistent Government decisions across departmental boundaries, ensuring that limited resources are used to best effect and that the industry knows what to expect from Government.
        That was the most inadequate aspect of the Government's reply. It says little more than
        "the DTI constantly reviews the issues facing the aerospace sector"
        750
        with various organisations, firms and other Departments. We believe that the evidence discussed in our report showed present practices fall far short of what is needed, and short of what foreign Governments with clear aims and strategies achieve for their aerospace industries. We have pressed the DTI for further consideration of the issue.
        Another point concerns the further reductions in military expenditure and the conversion of defence resources, especially in technological skills and the use of civil manufacturing. We recommended a study of how British industry can be assisted in the transfer from military to civil manufacture. Unfortunately, the Government said that there was no need for a study and that it should be left for either market forces or Europe to decide.
        The United Kingdom aerospace industry has to compete in the market as it is, dominated by Government-backed competitors. There is no free market in aerospace products. The Trade and Industry Select Committee concluded that the United Kingdom industry needed more effective Government help, probably including some increased spending, to enable it to compete on equal terms in world markets. Without that, the industry was likely to lose its technological competitiveness, not in the next year or two, but slowly over the next decade or so. The Government may wish to dispute that, but they have not done so in their reply to our report.
        That extra help is needed; the question is how high it will be on the scale of priorities. Is manufacturing industry, including the aerospace industry, a priority or not? I have no doubt what the answer to that question should be, and I believe that our report points the Government in that direction. If we want to keep the jewel in the crown shining and not tarnished, I suggest that the Government respond to the report's recommendations more positively.
        7.59 pm
        Mr. John Wilkinson: I must declare a commercial interest. I chair a company which is actively involved in the aerospace industry, so I have a professional concern for its welfare. I have also just concluded a parliamentary industrial fellowship—a post-graduate attachment—with TI. The subject I concentrated on, mostly with Dowty Aerospace, was the future of the aerospace industry at a time of airline recession and defence cuts.
        The severe downturn in the civil air transport business and the drastic reductions in military budgets have impinged in a most dramatic way upon an industry which is crucial to the economic welfare of our nation and vital for our national security and prosperity.
        I believe that the Government have a strategic interest in maintaining the United Kingdom as one of the leading aerospace nations in the western world. They should tailor their policies accordingly and bear five things in mind when constructing that strategy. First, for defence considerations, the Government should remember that we need a truly competitive military aerospace business. Secondly, they should note that rotary wing manufacture is an industry with a future, civil as well as military. Thirdly, we are already in civil air transport construction and need to remain so. Fourthly, we are pre-eminently the western European nation with a world capability in the construction of aero engines. Fifthly, the Government should consider that we neglect space at our peril and that we need to invest more in it. I should add to those five points a sixth—

        751
        consideration of equipment—because, unless we concentrate on those five points, it is likely that we will not have a competitive equipment and component sector.
        There are two aspects to the civil sector. British Aerospace, which has come to dominate the manufacture or part-manufacture of civil air transports in this country, went through an extraordinary process of expansion in recent years. It followed a process of diversification into all kinds of activities which bore no relation to its core businesses. It was almost as though the company made a Gadarene rush into acquisition, diversification and expansion. Under Mr. Cahill, BAe has now wisely returned to its roots and is focusing on its core businesses. The process of doing so, however, is difficult and painful and it has caused much readjustment within the company.
        It has been decided that for the smaller range of civil air transports, the regional jet range of four-engine turbo fans based on the 146, a partner should be sought in Taiwan Aerospace. This may or may not come to fruition and it looks much less likely than it did, but BAe should have sought a more appropriate partner, such as Fokker, in good time. Fokker is now part of DASSA, so an opportunity was missed. I hope that we may retain some part of the regional jet market in years to come, but it will not be easy.
        Likewise, it will not be easy to retain an important and significant share in the smaller twin-turbo prop market, where there is already significant overcapacity. In its wisdom, BAe is pursuing collaboration with PTN in Indonesia to try to develop complementarily the Jetstream series of aircraft. Indonesia has been working for some time with CASA of Spain. We shall see if the arrangement works out; I hope that it will. Again, however, it must be said that such readjustments and attempts at new partnerships have come very late in the day.
        Mr. George Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Parliament was lobbied today by the management and workers, with the support of their local authority, of the Jetstream project? They pointed out that it was difficult for Jetstream to compete with some competitors who had an advantage because the subsidies given to them by their Governments were far in excess of the support given by the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that delegation that we should give similar support or that we should ensure, through GATT or the European Community, that there is no unfair competition so that Jetstream can compete fairly with the other aircraft?
        Mr. Wilkinson: I take to heart what the hon. Gentleman has said and I share the concerns of the workers at Prestwick, and those who come from his constituency. Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to see what was Scottish Aviation prosper under its new guise and have an assured future. It will be very difficult to ensure genuinely fair competition, however, because nations that are embarking on creating indigenous aircraft industries are bound to give generous support to the easiest part of the industry to develop—the construction of relatively unsophisticated twin-turbo prop aircraft.
        I want negotiations through GATT on this matter, as on all others, to prove in the future to have been a success. I cannot say that this area of BAe's business is absolutely secure yet. The company is, however, determined to make
        752
        it competitive, and I am sure that the workers at Prestwick are working as hard as they ever did to make a success of it. It has good a good product range.
        The larger end of the product range is represented by the airbus series of aircraft. Here again, launch aid has proved itself. When I was chairman of my party's aviation committee in the mid-1980s I remember going along to see my right hon. Friend, Mrs. Thatcher, with the past committee chairmen to argue for launch aid for the A320. She replied, "Oh John, it will never work. Boeing will dominate the market. Why should we waste our time on things like that?"—or words to that effect.
        We managed, however, with the support and encouragement of the Labour party and that of Lord Varley, then an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, to table an early-day motion which commanded the support of nearly half the membership of the House. As a result, we persuaded Her Majesty's Treasury to invest £220 million in launch aid. The A320 sold more aircraft off the drawing board than any airliner in west European history.
        The purpose behind this anecdotal account is to show that there genuinely is a worthwhile role for launch aid. When those responsible for the airbus come to build a really big aircraft to compete with or to succeed the jumbo, the new aircraft could be a worthwhile candidate for launch aid.
        What worries me about the military side of business is the way in which the European fighter aircraft programme has absorbed such a large proportion of the Government's defence budget for development. For understandable reasons, the first flight will probably be two years late and the entry into service will be some four years late. I compare that with the achievements of Avions Marcel Dassault which is building its Rafale aircraft on its own and has already got several prototypes in the air for the French air force and for the French fleet air arm.
        I am also interested in the progress of the Swedish Saab JAS39 programme. I know that BAe has a marketing agreement with Saab for the aircraft and that it is lending its expertise, especially in the development of the flight control system. However, for the next generation of combat aircraft, I wonder whether we should have four-nation programmes again. They are complicated to manage and extremely political in nature.
        Also, if a programme such as the EFA consumes such a disproportionate part of what used to be known as the Air Force's budget and is now the MOD's budget for air systems, it has a negative impact on important equipments which are at least as important as the platforms. For example, a stand-off weapon for Tornado has been in mind for many years and still has not come to fruition. The RAF needs an intelligent anti-armour weapon, especially as the MLRS 3 has been cancelled.
        Britain's defence has been degraded by the fact that we cannot afford, at least in the immediate future, to deploy a medium surface-to-air missile to replace the Bloodhound. I also gather that the mid-life update of the Tornado to the GR4 standard will not be as comprehensive as would otherwise have been the case. In future, I hope that we shall not invest such a vast amount in mega-projects but will consider them more carefully.
        Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the first flight of the Eurofighter 2000 has been somewhat delayed, first flights of previous aircraft have also been delayed and it is therefore not outside the

        753
        band that one would expect? Despite the fact that the Eurofighter has not yet flown, the in-service date from the French air force for Rafale is after that of Eurofighter, in 2001, and the Rafale aircraft will be more expensive and inferior to the EFA.
        Mr. Wilkinson: All those things may or may not be true. I hope they are, because I like to see projects in which the British have a leading role proving to be the best. The projects must be the best because, if we are deploying a front-line fighter/attack aircraft, it must do its job against a potentially well-equipped adversary. For good military and industrial reasons, I hope that what my hon. Friend—who has considerable experience and professional wisdom in those matters—said is true. Nevertheless, I feel bound to inject a note of caution.
        In a relatively short time, we shall also need an enhancement of our air transport force. We have all recognised the importance to our aid efforts and to our military deployments of the Herculese C130 aircraft which are in service with the RAF. They are wonderful work horses, but they cannot go on for ever. There must be a limit to the process of refurbishment. There is an improved version of the C130—the J version—available to the RAF. Were it selected, it would benefit British industry because the RAF would be the launch customer and a number of British suppliers such as Dowty Rotol for the propellers, Westland Aerospace for the nacelles, Smiths, Lucas and Marshalls of Cambridge would benefit. More than that, we would get a transport into service which was much more cost effective than the existing version of the Hercules.
        I hope that the Government will recognise these facts and will not let themselves be diverted into thinking about what may or may not come into service in the next century—future large aircraft, or whatever. I doubt whether the Ministry of Defence has the money to invest development funding in a strategic turbo fan transport of the FLA category.
        One has only to consider the problems McDonnell Douglas has had with the C17, which is badly over budget, late and performing below specification. Since we took the Belfast out of service many years ago, we have not invested in a strategic long-range transport aircraft. We have not bought C5s or C141s. Instead, when needed, we have chartered civil Belfasts and used them for military purposes. Can the decision on the Hercules C130 be postponed any longer? I do not think that it should be.
        Nor should we postpone for too long important decisions which affect the future of our rotary wing aircraft constructor Westland. There are two major programmes vital to the future of the company—first, the selection of an attack helicopter for the Army and I hope for the Royal Marines too, and I say that advisedly; and a new support helicopter for the Royal Air Force. The Secretary of State for Defence has announced that he intends, as I understand it, to buy a mix of EH 10l support helicopters and additional Chinook helicopters. We shall certainly need them and the attack helicopters soon because wherever our troops are deployed —whether in peacekeeping operations as we debated earlier or otherwise—we always need more helicopters.
        The aero engine business is important to our future as an industrial and engineering nation. It is remarkable how we have stayed in the big league for so many years and how competitive Rolls-Royce plc has remained, even after the trauma of the failure of the company in 1971. Rolls-Royce
        754
        plc now has a range of products which have important niches in their respective markets —for example, the Trent for big long-range twin jets, the Tay for the medium-range civil transports and long-range business aircraft, the EJ200 for the European fighter aircraft and other military programmes, the RTM 322 for helicopters or for potential business aircraft use, and the BMW-Rolls-Royce 700 series of collaborative engines for medium-range transports.
        Rolls-Royce plc needs to be sustained because it is of strategic importance to Britain. I do not know whether it will come to an arrangement with Pratt and Whitney or how it sees its commercial future. However, it is crucial for our national defence and our engineering capacity that we stay in the aero engine business. If Rolls-Royce plc asks the Government for launch aid for programmes which it believes to be commercially viable, I hope that its request will be sympathetically received.
        One also ought to bear in mind that the market for spares continues for 25 to 30 years after an engine has gone out of production. For example, spares for the Dart, the Spey, the Avon and the Tyne are still being manufactured. Engines such as the Adour, the RB199 and the Pegasus will serve the spares businesses for many years to come.
        Looking back at the development of our aircraft industry over the past generation, the decision which I believe to be most fatal for the welfare of the space business in Britain was the one to opt out of the launcher business. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the mid-1960s we had in Blue Streak a launcher which could have provided the main launch facility for Europe for decades to come. Instead we unilaterally decided to get out of the business.
        Aerospatiale, CNES—the French national space agency—and the French Government decided to support the Ariane series of launchers, and very good business they have proved. In space, we have concentrated more on telecommunications, remote sensing and so on. This is an appropriate field. It is good business and it is worth while. But as other nations such as Japan, China and India all recognise the importance of space, we shall need to invest more.
        I congratulate the Select Committee on its timely report. I am pleased that the Government have given a thoughtful reply to its recommendations. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement should have taken time to share the debate with us. It is in the interests of our country that the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry work together to support an industry of such crucial commercial and strategic significance.
        Several hon. Members rose—
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is self-evident that many hon. Members want to speak in the debate tonight. We do not have a great deal of time. I ask hon. Members who catch my eye early to exercise considerable restraint. Otherwise, there will be many disappointed Members.
        8.21 pm
        Mr. Ken Eastham: I find this a rather refreshing debate. It is unusual because, for a change, we are speaking about industry. So often, we find

        755
        ourselves discussing insurance, finance and housing, but on this rare occasion we are talking about making things—things that we can make well and sell abroad.
        Tonight, we are talking about something we are really good at. One thing that we are good at is the aerospace industry. As far as it goes, our industry is the best in Europe. The only major competitor is America, so we can sell our goods abroad. This debate is not about begging or about pleading for something to which we are not entitled. Many of us feel that the aerospace industry is entitled to more consideration from the Government. Unfortunately, it does not have it.
        I remember reading a newspaper headline after a report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was published. It said, "DTI snubs Select Committee on the conclusions of its report." The Trade and Industry Select Committee has achieved a unanimous report. It is to be congratulated on the way in which it has gone about it. The industry is also to be congratulated because it had co-operated in a non-political way with a sincere desire to improve British capability and profitability.
        It is a great pity that we have received little encouragement so far. I plead with Ministers urgently to review their thinking. The aerospace industry is one of the few success industries. If the United Kingdom aerospace industry failed, some of our competitors, such as Germany, France and others, would be delighted. It would mean less competition for them. They would become more and more prosperous and we would gradually wither away.
        Even the Government have talked recently about the need to improve our industrial base. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have said that. That is somewhat belated, but we who come from industry are delighted that, at last, industry is being recognised. Even the Engineering Employers Federation raised its hands in despair 12 months ago and said that not enough was being done for the engineering industry.
        I am sad to have to tell the House tonight that only last week in my area, Ferranti—a well-known company—was on the point of closure. Several hundred highly skilled jobs could be lost, mainly in the north-west. The nation can ill afford to lose those highly skilled people. They would lose their job through no fault of their own. It is not a case of their incompetence, lack of skill or lack of competitiveness. On this occasion, it was just a case of bad management. That is a fact. Those hundreds of jobs are now to be smashed.
        It is also a fact that the aerospace industry has been contracting at a tidy old pace. About 27,000 jobs have gone. I should like to impress on the Government that unless they do something radical, that contraction will accelerate. We shall lose one of the finest industrial winners that we have.
        I should like to underline a few special issues. The first is GATT. I sincerely believe that we must not give the United States aerospace industry more favourable terms than other countries. We already know that the United States heavily subsidises its aricraft industry. It has a massive defence industry which is far bigger than any aircraft defence industry in any other country in the world. It has the largest space industry and a massive satellite empire. That is all high-tech industry which we know is
        756
        being spilled into the American aircraft industry. For those reasons, we must be extremely careful when we negotiate with the Americans in the GATT round.
        Another issue is national strategic technology acquisition. I understand that the Treasury is receiving £30 million net cash in launch aid for the A320. Yet it is deplorable to report that the civil aviation fund is being cut. That is not a sign of progress. Those are some of the damning facts that have to be faced up to.
        The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to the need to develop the European future large aircraft. There may be a debate about whether we should enter that industry. I believe that we cannot afford not to. At present, America has a monopoly in very large aircraft. We must attempt to stop world monopoly of, say, the American Hercules. The only way in which we can do that is to apply ourselves, along with other European countries, to producing the goods.
        It is no good saying that we cannot, or should not do it. The same was said about the airbus. People said that it would not work. I am not a little Englander, but I believe that our engineering is as good as any in the world. Therefore, I do not believe that we cannot develop a large aircraft. We can do it if our engineering skills are given the chance. If we embarked on such a project, we would also avoid heavy import costs. It affects the balance of payments when one makes massive purchases of such aircraft. There is no doubt that such purchases will continue.
        My next subject is export credits. We have not supported industry very well and for proof of the pudding one has only to make comparisons with the favourable terms that Germany and France have been able to offer, which mean that we are not playing on a level playing field. We have been greatly disadvantaged and there is no doubt that, owing to certain changes, such as the end of the cold war, the market is declining and will become far more aggressive. We can, therefore, justify additional help from the Government.
        If the Department of Trade and Industry had offered more support we would have gained a larger market share. For example, we could have built a larger proportion of the airbus if the DTI had given more assistance; we got the wings. We are grateful for that, as it has been a money spinner. However, some people have no doubt that it we had been more determined and had had the courage to invest more, we could have had a bigger share of the cake and made more of a very successful aircraft than just the wings.
        One final plea is that we must remember that the aerospace industry is highly technical and that the staff in it need quality training. If we are to be world leaders we must place more emphasis on high-tech skills and spend some money on them.
        I do not think that any hon. Member has mentioned that we must also remember the industry's hundreds of equipment suppliers and their sub-contractors. Thousands of supply jobs will be at stake outside the aerospace companies if there is any further contraction in the industry. Time is not on our side. We must make some decisions now. We cannot put it off, or say that we will think about it at the turn of the century. By that time, it will be too late and other countries will have wiped our industry out. We must decide whether we are to have a British

        757
        aerospace industry. I predict that if we do not take that decision, our aerospace industry will become just another British engineering graveyard.
        8.32 pm
        Mr. Keith Mans: I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to discuss the aerospace industry and I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who opened the debate. I agree with him that the industry has been a world beater. It contributes 9 per cent. of out total manufacturing exports, valued at £7.7 billion last year. In addition, our industry is 30 per cent. more efficient than the German industry at manufacturing aircraft. It operates at the frontiers of science in a number of different areas of technology and that is well established by three articles in the most recent edition of the journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
        The first article deals with the YF22—the latest American fighter—and reflects the advances in two areas in which aviation has led other industries—the lightness and strength of materials. Those advances will be taken a stage further by Eurofighter 2000—an aircraft which will be 85 per cent. non-metal. While it is the same size as Tornado—an aircraft which illustrates the previous generation of technology—it is none the less 30 per cent. lighter and considerably stronger. For good measure, its radar signature is 50 per cent. less than that of the Tornado. Despite all those advances, in real terms, the aircraft is cheaper than the Tornado. Those new materials and the techniques used to produce them economically will have an ever-widening use in commercial aircraft—as has happened with the previous advances in military technology that have transferred directly to commercial aircraft—and in many other industries.
        The second article described fly-by-wire systems, which are designed to make aircraft lighter, but also to improve their reliability and to reduce pilot error. In aircraft today, the controls are operated by touch, but in future they might even be operated by sight. Those advances are at the forefront of technology. Britain is again ahead, or at least abreast, of the world. The new systems require highly complicated software, which is constantly testing the frontiers of artificial intelligence. The systems that are being tested for aircraft today will have applications in a wide range of industrial processes tomorrow, as the interface between man and machine becomes even more sophisticated.
        The third article describes jet engine development, where increased thrust aligned with efficiency and reliability—to say nothing of aviation's constant need for lightness and strength—are driving engine designers to look for even more esoteric material and production techniques, to allow higher temperatures at the back end of the engines, while increasing mass flow at the front. As hon. Members have said, Rolls-Royce has been at the forefront of those developments, especially in the development of the wide-core fan, which has revolutionised compressor development. The company has also developed turbine blades that allow even higher inlet temperatures. The developments are vital to Rolls-Royce if it is to continue to sell engines in the same numbers.
        Another illustration of the advanced nature of the aircraft industry is to be found in management techniques. Here I must differ with my hon. Friend the Member for
        758
        Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Any development is highly expensive and, therefore, partnerships are the order of the day. That means that design teams in different countries, speaking different languages, have to communicate effectively with each other. That is taken to the ultimate in the production of the Eurofighter 2000, where one wing is produced by the Italians and the other is a combination of British and Spanish manufacture. I hope that we shall see it fly successfully within the first quarter of next year.
        The techniques used to allow such management practices to be successful have a direct bearing on some other industries, as they, too, find that the only way to fund the development of new products is through partnerships with companies in other countries. Because it is operating at the frontiers of science, the development of new aircraft and air systems is highly expensive. In the past, Governments have been intimately involved in such developments—not always successfully—but it is worth pointing out that, during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, the British Government's involvement in many developments had a direct bearing on the size and strength of the aircraft and component industry today.
        The aerospace industry is a long-term industry. Investments 20, 15 or 10 years ago have a direct bearing on the number of people employed and the wealth created today and on revenues to the Exchequer. Even Concorde, which in pure cash terms was not a commercial success, has allowed our component and avionics industries to remain at the forefront of today's techonology. That has meant considerable export success during the past decade for many companies, contributing much more back to the Treasury in tax revenues than was expended on the development of Concorde.
        Many other countries recognise the need to foster and develop their aircraft industries. I noticed in The Times on Saturday that the French balance of payments surplus last month almost accurately reflected our deficit. That is in no small way due to the whole-hearted commitment to aviation of the French. They have built up an industry that was almost non-existent after the second world war into one that is slightly larger than ours today, a fact made clear by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central.
        The Americans, too, have recognised the importance of the aircraft industry and have funded virtually all their civilian programmes through research and development contracts for similar military projets. Other countries, particularly in the developing world and around the Pacific rim, also want to create and develop their aerospace industries. It might seem strange that so many countries wish to do that, bearing in mind the high cost and poor returns in the short term. The reasons are twofold: first, they recognise the long-term nature of the industry—aircraft produced today are likely to be in service in 20 or 30 years' time; and, secondly, the cost of maintaining and supplying them with spares many times exceeds their original price.
        Nothing illustrates the long-term nature of the industry better than the British Government's decision in 1971 to pull out of the Airbus consortium. As a result, now that we are back in we have only 20 per cent. rather than 33 per cent. of the content of any of the aircraft produced by that consortium. That means a smaller British contribution than would otherwise have been the case. When we consider the number of aircraft that the Airbus consortium has sold,

        759
        which runs into thousands, that fact alone partly explains the balance of payments difference between France and Britain.
        The need to support the aviation industry is recognised even by the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which allows Governments to contribute up to 33 per cent. of the launch aid for new aerospace projects. The point is simple: even if we sign the GATT, no one should be under the misapprehension that it will allow us to trade on a level playing field with others that want us to become involved in aerospace activities if we do not continue to be involved in launch aid and support our industry.
        We must recognise the strategic importance of the aerospace industry to this country. That means not that we should initiate state-run projects but that the DTI should get behind developments that help aerospace companies in this country to maintain their position in the world. That will mean supporting new development and research in all sorts of areas, particularly those that I mentioned earlier. It means encouraging partnerships between different companies to produce specific aircraft or series of aircraft, as well as the provision of launch aid.
        As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central said, there is much evidence of the support that the Americans are giving their jet engine industry, amounting to some $760 million a year. What is even more significant about that amount is that some of the money being provided to launch the G-90 engine produced by General Electric—the direct rival of the Rolls-Royce Trent—is being provided by the European Community through the link between General Electric and the French engine company, SNECMA.
        It is therefore no surprise that the decision taken by British Airways a year or two ago to buy that engine was based on the better price that GE could offer compared with Rolls-Royce, largely because of the subsidy that it received not only from the American Government but from the European Community. That example shows clearly the importance of the British Government getting right behind Rolls-Royce in this highly competitive jet engine industry, which will mean wealth creation, tax revenues and jobs running well into the next century.
        That is true also for commercial aircraft. Because the Americans can no longer cross-subsidise, to the extent that they have in the past, civilian projects from military technology, they will directly subsidise commercial aircraft. Indeed, President Clinton has said as much in a number of speeches.
        Mr. Stephen Day: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Woodford plant of British Aerospace, where it builds the 146, is in my constituency. The company is looking to the future, with a deal with Taiwan and further development on the 146. Does he agree that it is essential, should the Taiwan deal not go through—we all hope and are fairly confident that it will, but have our doubts because we cannot be certain—that the company should have a chance to look for other partners because of the expertise and efficiency at the plant and the sacrifices made to produce an efficient manufacturing base at Woodford? Does he agree that, in those circumstances, it is essential that the Government ensure that such plants survive to be competitive in the future?
        Mr. Mans: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that, if the regional jet series of aircraft produced by British Aerospace are to be successful in the future, they will need to look for partners outside this country. In that context, the British Government should get behind industries that are looking for partners to ensure that projects like the regional jet series continue, and continue to sell well abroad.
        Another point that must be recognised relates to the reduced contribution that defence budgets, particularly ours, will make to research and development. In the past, we have partly gone down the American road of funding development through the defence vote. That is bound to be reduced in the future and it is, therefore, important that the DTI takes a more active role in that area, in partnership with the Ministry of Defence. Military and civilian development of aircraft have always run together, but now the burden of developing new products will fall increasingly on the commercial side. One way forward has already been pioneered in America, where partnership deals between companies and Government push along together developments that benefit both and have military and civilian objectives.
        That can be taken a stage further. In the early 1980s, we produced an aircraft called the European aircraft prototype as a technology demonstrator for Eurofighter. We now have an opportunity in relation to the future large aircraft project. Here, I differ somewhat with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and believe that we must at least get the RAF to put a spec forward to that consortium to say what they want, so that the consortium can at least see whether its proposals meet the RAF's needs.
        In that area, there is a possibility of providing a similar technology demonstrator to get industry and Governments together to see whether an aircraft to meet the needs of the different air forces in Europe for tactical and medium-range transport can be produced on this side of the Atlantic.
        The DTI has a reasonable record of supporting the aerospace industry, at least until the mid-1980s. Its support in the future will become even more vital, as the industry becomes even more competitive. Without it, one of our few remaining world-class industries is likely to go slowly into decline. That has ramifications well beyond aerospace.
        As the Select Committee report says, we need an overall policy framework for the industry. The DTI needs to spell out clearly its strategic thinking towards the industry. If it does that and supports the industry in the future, as it did before 1986, there is a fair chance that the aerospace industry will remain at the forefront of technology and continue to contribute handsomely both to our exports and to Exchequer revenues.
        8.48 pm
        Mr. Nigel Jones: I welcome this opportunity to debate the crucial aerospace industry. I pay tribute to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for producing such a readable and worthwhile report.
        A few weeks ago, during the conference season, the Prime Minister made some encouraging comments about manufacturing industry. He said:
        "We want British industry to be the best … Manufacturing industry is one of our greatest national assets … Compete on a level basis with the rest of the world … Make pounds for the UK; don't make dollars for other people … Sell abroad and buy at home."

        761
        We should all have been encouraged by those statements. I certainly was. At last, I thought, the Government have realised the importance of manufacturing industry, and aerospace in particular, to the future of Britain.
        I was encouraged by the report produced by the Select Committee into the British aerospace industry. It hit several nails on their respective heads. The industry is vital to Britain as an exporter and an employer. Aerospace is a net contributor to the balance of trade of some £2.5 billion a year. It is one of those high-value-added industries where Britain has enjoyed—and still enjoys in certain areas—the world lead.
        As we have heard, Britain's aerospace industry is the third largest in the world behind the dominant United States and just behind France. However, competition is tough and becoming tougher. To survive in world markets the industry must stay ahead of the competition—and to do that requires huge amounts of investment in research and in technology acquisition.
        The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which lobbied Parliament today, points out that British manufacturers are competing to sell our aircraft in an overcrowded market. They are competing against manufacturers from Brazil, France, Italy, the United States, Canada, Korea, Spain, Germany, Holland and Sweden, all of which are in direct receipt of Government support.
        Our competitors understand that competition is fierce. In October, Germany announced an eight-point strategic programme for the improvement of basic conditions for aerospace in Germany. The United States Federal Government are investing billions of dollars in aerospace and they are increasing their support. NASA's 1994 aeronautical research and development programme is up by 18 per cent. to more than $1 billion. The United States Defence Department spends $37 billion, of which more than 50 per cent. is applicable to aerospace technologies. The dual-use technology budget in 1994 is $964 million, linking the best of America's defence and commercial sectors. As we have already heard, President Clinton has announced an additional $17 billion of support for technology between 1994 and 1997.
        The most worrying feature of the aerospace industry is that it is widely believed that Japan has taken the strategic decision to produce an entire aircraft by 2015. Only a fool would bet against it achieving that aim, bearing in mind its success in world markets with cars, televisions, videos, hi-fi and computers. Other competitors are also building up their aerospace industries—for example, Taiwan and Indonesia.
        With the background of the Select Committee report and after hearing the Prime Minister's encouraging words, I awaited the Budget with great interest. I hoped that, at last, the Government would take responsibility for mapping out a strategy for the future support of the aerospace industry. That is important because exactly the opposite has happened during recent years. Since 1974, Government support under the civil aircraft research and demonstration programme for the aerospace industry has fallen in real terms, on 1993 figures, from £87 million per year to £20 million per year.
        Yet what happened in the Budget? Nothing. There was no vision for the future, no statement of direction, no tangible support for the industry—it was as though those who spoke at the conference were different people from those who speak in this House. Frankly, that is of great
        762
        concern to those who work in the industry and to those of us who represent constituencies with a long tradition of involvement in aerospace.
        There was a time when Government felt and demonstrated responsibility for the future of industries in Britain. By any standard, aerospace is one of our key industries. As I have already said, it is one of the few that has a positive effect on the balance of payments —more than £2.5 billion. It also employs large numbers of skilled people in well-paid, high-value-added jobs. Sadly, during recent years the number of people employed has fallen and is continuing to fall—35,000 jobs have been lost since 1985.
        Part of that reduction is due to improvements in productivity and the use of technology in the design and manufacturing process. However, part is also due to the lack of direction and Government support for an industry that is becoming increasingly competitive worldwide. The Government are not supporting our aerospace industry in the same way as the Governments of our major competitors are supporting their industries in the USA, France, Germany, Canada and, increasingly, the far east.
        The Select Committee's report supported the view of the Department of Trade and Industry's aviation committee on what needs to be done to maintain the industry's technological competitiveness. That was set out by the aviation committee in the form of a national strategic technology acquisition plan—NSTAP—which the Minister accepted on 20 July. The key recommendation of the Select Committee's report was recommendation 19—
        Mr. Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman said that the Minister accepted the NSTAP report on 20 July. It might be better if he corrected that statement and said that the principle was accepted—the Government have still not said how the recommendations in the report are to be funded.
        Mr. Jones: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, the former president of the Bristol chamber of commerce, Alex Ewens, wrote in the Western Daily Press
        on 19 November:
        "The DTI has decided to adopt the principles of NSTAP, but has said nothing about how it is to be funded."
        Recommendation 19 of the Select Committee report states:
        "The Government should set out in much greater detail than hitherto the overall policy framework and view of the industry's future which it intends to guide individual decisions affecting the UK aerospace industry."
        That recommendation and, indeed, the whole report was welcomed by the industry.
        Sir Barry Duxbury, director of the Society of British Aerospace Companies—the SBAC—the trade association for the aerospace industry, said in a news release dated 21
        July 1993:
        "This report proves that parliamentarians across the political spectrum are keen to take a long-term view of manufacturing industry. It also proves that the House of Commons does want to address the important issues that will determine our country's ability to pay for its social aspirations."
        Sadly, following the Government's response to the Committee's report, Sir Barry issued another SBAC release on 10 November stating:
        "I must say that the Government's response to recommendation 19 was particularly disappointing. This recommendation urged the Government to set out in much greater detail than hitherto, its overall policy framework and view of the industry's

        763
        future—in other words, to spell out clearly the strategic thinking, analysis and prioritisation which should guide its policies. Yet the response implied an absence of strategic thinking."
        Those were Sir Barry's words, not mine—but I agree.
        Britain has some excellent aerospace companies. British Aerospace is by far the largest, Rolls-Royce make the best engines in the world, and there are leading equipment suppliers such as Smiths Industries and Dowty—which have operations in and near my constituency. Dowty supplies the landing gear for the European airbus and won the contract for the A320 in 1983. Supply began three years later in 1986, and repair and overhaul is expected to start in 1994. It is likely that that aircraft will still be flying in 2025 or even 2030.
        The Dowty A320 landing gear contract demonstrates the long life of aerospace projects—in that case, 40 years. I am making the point that investment this year will not bring a payback for many years. The Government have a role to play in helping projects through launch aid at the front end of a project, in the research and development years.
        The Government should put into action the report's recommendations in full, increase the limited amount of support given to British aerospace companies so that they enjoy a level playing field in competition against countries in which Government support is more extensive, and extend launch aid to the equipment sector. That last point is important because equipment suppliers have been discouraged from applying for launch aid in the past. On page 69 of volume 2 of the report, Dowty states in evidence:
        "Dowty did not apply for launch aid for its landing gear on the A330-340 in a formal way because we were consistently informed by the DTI that it would not be forthcoming."
        Why not?
        Aerospace is a global industry. British companies, to succeed in world markets, must innovate and stay ahead of the competition. Although we need to join with our European partners to tackle ambitious projects such as the BFLA so that British companies retain a slice of world business now and in future, and while I welcome the recent link between Dowty and Messier Bugatti, British companies can—with the right support—create wealth and jobs for Britain into the next century.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) introduced the Liberal Democrat alternative to the Budget one week before the Chancellor introduced his Budget. That of my friend mapped out hope for the future and included £400 million in support for scientific research. Part of that was earmarked for aerospace support.
        Last Friday, I met Graham Lockyer, managing director of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear. He estimates that the aerospace industry needs £100 million of support annually, which is rather more than the Government are providing this year. The industry is not asking for cash handouts or to be featherbedded, but wants a flow of orders so that it can produce a flow of supply.
        I agree with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that the Government should make up their mind on the replacement for the Hercules transport fleet. British companies such as Westland of Yeovil and Dowty Propellers in Cheltenham have already won contracts to supply key equipment to Lockheed for the C130J, one of
        764
        the options. Many British Hercules aircraft are aging after decades in service and it is not fair that our service men should be expected to make do with aircraft of old design that have done sterling service for as long as 30 years.
        The aerospace industry is not just about jobs today but about job and wealth creation well into the next century. The Government are placing that future in jeopardy. All the warning lights are red, with the fierce and increasing competition from abroad, the high and increasing cost of new products, and a slowdown in orders. This year, for the first time, design engineers have been made redundant. Once design teams are lost, it is virtually impossible to put them back together—and highly expensive if one can.
        Aerospace is a global business and the people who work in it are extremely mobile. If there are no jobs for them in Britain, they will go abroad. If they see no long-term future for the industry in Britain, they will go abroad for good. There are competitors who would love to recruit designers from Britain because they are the best in the world. They would be recruiting not just the skills of our people but the world-leading knowledge that they gained in our companies. That would make it even more difficult for British firms to compete.
        I urge the Government to act on all 19 of the Committee's recommendations. If they fail to do so, there is a danger that our aerospace industry will contract, jobs will continue to be lost, and we shall suffer a deteriorating balance of payments. I am critical of the Chancellor's Budget. Where were the measures to create wealth for five, 10 or 15 years down the track? We must encourage those companies which are at the leading edge of technology. We must train people to become the designers and the engineers of the future, and they must know that there is a secure, well-paid career ahead of them.
        We must face up to the future and invest now; otherwise the future will be bleak. If we fail to act now, I fear that the historians of the next century will write of the British Government of the 1990s: "Where was the strategy? Where was the vision?"
        9.5 pm
        Mr. Phil Gallie: I congratulate the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on a wide-ranging and deep analysis of the aerospace industry and welcome many of the Government's responses. I will pick up in particular three of the recommendations and responses which affect Jetstream aircraft. The company operates from my constituency in Prestwick and was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
        Jetstream employs 2,600 people at Prestwick. Redundancy notices have been issued to some 460, and a further 130 site contractors are also to go. The situation perhaps reflects the realities of the marketplace and Jetstream, which designs and builds turboprop regional jet aircraft, does not try to hide behind the difficulties of the marketplace. Its preference, without a doubt, is for free markets. However, even with the GATT talks coming to what we all hope will be a successful conclusion, it is unlikely that freedom of the marketplace will be a consequence of that conclusion.
        Three major projects are produced by Jetstream, to which I will initially relate my comments on recommendation 8 of the report. One of the projects is the Jetstream 31, which is a real trailblazer: it is a 19-seater aircraft, is the

        765
        market leader worldwide and has taken up 36 per cent. of the 12 to 19-seat aircraft market. That has led Jetstream to develop Jetstream 41. It is a 29-seater and it was certificated in record time from the date of its announcement. Jetstream 41 has left the company's rival Dornier, which proposed a similar aircraft at the same time as British Aersospace, standing at the blocks.
        Jetstream 41 offers a plane which can meet all the performance criteria of its competitors in speed, range and payload and, above all, meet them at what is recognised to be the lowest cost on the market—the lowest cost without a substantial subsidy. It has real potential. The Jetstream 41 and 31 programmes have received some Government support. Some £11 million has been given through regional selective assistance, regional development and training grants. However, there have been almost 400 sales, which has provided earnings of about $2 billion.
        That means that Jetstream has paid to the Exchequer in taxes some £64 million, which, when the £11 million grant is taken into account, leaves it as a net contributor to the British economy accounting for some £53 million. That does not take account of the wealth that has been generated in Ayrshire, in Scotland generally and throughout the United Kingdom. Many companies throughout the United Kingdom assist and supply the Jetstream projects.
        Recently, Jetstream failed to win an order from Sky West, an American company, for some 20 aircraft. That was despite the fact that it was recognised that the Jetstream product was liable to have the lowest cost. The competitor, Embraer of Brazil, used the Proex system of subsidy and was able to discount its aircraft by between 12 and 15 per cent. Its aircraft were thus $1 million cheaper than anything Jetstream could possibly compete with.
        That brings me to recommendation 8 of the report. There is a suggestion that the United Kingdom Government should make comparisons between the levels of subsidies offered here and those offered overseas. In the example to which I referred, that would be very helpful.
        Mr. Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, for once, I agree with everything that he has said? I hope that that does not upset him too much and does not do him too much harm back home. Does he agree that he and all Ayrshire Members made those points when they met the Minister for Industry? Does he also accept that we were all a little disappointed by the lack of urgency that the Minister brought to the point? Will the hon. Gentleman join me in hoping that the Minister for Industry has now appreciated the seriousness of the situation in Prestwick and that he will deal with these matters rather more vigorously in his reply tonight than he dealt with them at our meeting last month?
        Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman may agree with all that I have said today, but I will hold back a little my total agreement with him on the issue. I was slightly disappointed by some of the things that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said to me on that occasion. However, when I spoke to him later, he gave me assurances and said that he would meet the managing director of Jetstream. He assured me that if he received additional information, the issues would be addressed positively. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will do that in due course. I accept that it was necessary to provide additional information.
        766
        Let us consider the facts behind the Brazilian offer in respect of Embraer. The salt is rubbed in when I discover that we have been providing technical aid to Brazil through our overseas aid programmes and through international debt write-off. Ministers must consider that aspect. I am in favour of overseas aid, but it must be provided reasonably. I do not expect it to bounce back and kick us in the teeth, as it has on this occasion. I am concerned about the fact that a further order of 20 aircraft is probably coming up. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minster will address that issue and ensure that the same conditions do not prevail the next time round.
        Prestwick has recently taken on the advanced turbo-prop programme. It picked up a considerable number of problems, but the designers are coming to grips with them. Indeed, British Airways has commended those designers on the way in which they have tackled some of the long-standing problems of the ATP. The intention is to turn the ATP into the new Jetstream 61 which will compete—and I am confident will beat—the ATR 72, which has the majority market share in the 60-seater market.
        The Government have provided assistance through regional aid through the Scottish Office. To date, no payments have been made, but with the successful transfer of the ATP to Prestwick, I believe that that payment is now due. When we consider the range of aircraft that Jetstream needs to build if it is to stay in that sector of the market, it is clear that there are gaps in the 50-seater and 70-seater ranges. In those respects, Jetstream needs, and is looking for, partners. At the same time, it will need assistance with launch aid, about which we have heard much tonight.
        I now refer to recommendation 10. We are aware that launch aid is dependent on GATT, which suggests that a third of relevant costs can be met in launch aid provision. That reflects one third of the costs associated with the development of aircraft above the 100-seater range. One can compare the development costs and profitability of smaller aircraft. Larger aircraft are restricted to one third support payments. I query whether it would be possible, under existing arrangements, to go above one third launch aid support for aircraft beneath the 100-seater range. That would be a great benefit to Jetstream.
        When we consider the potential market for aircraft in that range, we must acknowledge that any money brought forward initially by Government support for projects such as the Jetstream 61 and 51 and, some day, the 71 will be well spent if the returns are as good as they have been in respect of the Jetstream 31 and 41. I am confident that, with the knowledge, capability and design expertise in Jetstream at Prestwick, such good returns can certainly be achieved.
        Recommendation 13 of the Trade and Industry Select Committee report refers to the Ministry of Defence procurement programme. I was particularly pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement here. Not long ago, he met me and the managing director of Jetstream to consider the Department's trainer provision, currently T30s and T31s.
        Mr. Brian Donohoe: Has anything come of that meeting with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, given that it is the wish of the Jetstream management and the work force that an order be placed by the Ministry of Defence to replace old aircraft?
        Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Ministry of Defence officials have met people

        767
        from Jetstream at Prestwick to discuss those issues. A paper was tabled which laid down what Jetstream considered to be some long-term financial advantages. I am not aware of the final conclusions, but I should like at least to think that the Ministry of Defence and Jetstream can find a solution that will benefit them both.
        On free trade, Britain cannot be unilateralist. Therefore, I again refer to my first point and ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to analyse every aspect of the subsidies which operate in the international aviation market and ensure that Jetstream can compete on a level playing field.
        My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor mentioned a 20-seater aircraft tax exemption to be applied to travellers within the United Kingdom. Given the current situation, and given the sort of aircraft that service the highlands and islands, it would be reasonable to extend that tax relief to 70-seater aircraft. That, above all, would help Jetstream with its excellent project.
        My final point relates to the export credit guarantees on Jetstream 31 and 41 aircraft. If the time elements of seven and 10 years were extended to 12 years, it would be a great boost to the excellent products manufactured by Jetstream at Prestwick.
        9.20 pm
        Mr. Adam Ingram: I am only the second member of the Select Committee to participate in this debate. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and pay tribute to the clerks and staff of the Committee, and to the specialist advisers. Undoubtedly, they assisted us in producing a report that has been warmly welcomed by everyone connected with the aerospace industry, other than the Department of Trade and Industry.
        Given the time scale I now face, I hope to comment on the Government's response to the report. It is interesting to note that not one Tory member of the Select Committee is present in the House tonight. It is also interesting to note that Scottish National party Members are not present either, although more than 8,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland are tied up in the aerospace industry.
        The British aerospace industry is vital to UK plc. It is one of the high-value industries and is a major contributor to employment in a high-skill, high-wage sector, exports and technology. More important, the industry is vital to the regions of the United Kingdom. Until last year, Rolls-Royce was the largest manufacturing employer in my constituency of East Kilbride. It has now gone down the pecking list to become the second largest manufacturing employer. It has dropped thousands of jobs over the years.
        I do not have time to go into the background of Rolls-Royce, but it is no exaggeration to say that there is extreme nervousness among the work force at East Kilbride and the sister plant at Hillingdon in Glasgow. Certainly, the work force are critical of the company but they have a certain understanding of the dilemma and difficulties that it faces. However, the workers do not have confidence in the Government and the way in which they approach such a crucial industry.
        If my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had spoken in the debate,
        768
        he would have referred to the situation at British Aerospace at Prestwick. I am sure that he would have made a similar comment about the Rolls-Royce workers in Glasgow and East Kilbride. Those workers have no confidence whatever in the Government. They know that the industry is doing its best and the company is fighting hard in a competitive market without the Government's support.
        We have a lot to be proud of in Britain's aerospace industry, but we have more to be concerned about for the future. Engineers do not live on history alone. One message game across loud and clear in all the evidence given by aerospace manufacturers in the United Kingdom and the main suppliers—there is a need for a coherent Government strategy for the aerospace industry if the country's relative international strength in aerospace technology is to survive beyond the end of this decade and into the next century.
        Every company that gave evidence to the Committee—Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, Short Brothers, GEC, Dowty, Westland, the major trade associations, the Electronic Engineering Association and the Society of British Aerospace Companies—highlighted the growing concern about the near crisis in the industry.
        There is no doubt that the industry is suffering, and will continue to suffer, because of the Government-created UK recession, the international recession and the effects of the massive and largely unpredictable downturn in defence expenditure world-wide. Uniquely among our competitors, that suffering is compounded in the United Kingdom industry by an indifferent and unsupportive Government. The Americans, French, Germans, Japanese and the emerging aerospace economies in Taiwan, Indonesia and Brazil all have the active support of their Governments. Those Governments recognise the long-term planning and investment horizons, which are an integral feature of aerospace technology, and assist their home-based companies accordingly. It is only in the United Kingdom that the view remains within Government that they should have a hands-off approach and that the market should dictate the future developments of this most strategic of industries.
        The difference in strategy between, say, the United Kingdom and the United States could not be more stark. The DTI and the Government dither about what to do with the Select Committee report and the fears and worries of the British aerospace industry, while at the same time cutting the support that they give the industry. Compare that with the United States aerospace industry. One of the first steps of the incoming Clinton Government was to lay down a revised technology and investment plan, committing more than $17 billion for the period 1994 to 1997. The bulk of that will be of direct benefit to the United States aerospace industry. By comparison, our Government are cutting support to one of our crucial industries.
        In its evidence to the Committee, Shorts, which I mentioned earlier, highlighted the difference in approach between this country and competitor countries. It told the Committee that it knows, from particular collaborative projects in which it has been involved, that significantly higher levels of financial assistance are available in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Canada and Japan than are available to it.
        Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Ingram: No. The hon. Gentleman took enough time, and I am not going to give him more time.
        I am sure that the chief executive of Dowty spoke for the whole United Kingdom aerospace industry when he told the Committee that the company was up against not just competitors but other Governments.
        The tragedy is that the United Kingdom Government are rapidly becoming one of those Governments that the United Kingdom industry is up against. It is for that reason that the Committee laid down its 19 recommendations. The report was unanimous. There was a Conservative majority on the Committee and 19 recommendations set out what the Committee thought was necessary for the future of the United Kingdom aerospace industry.
        The recommendations fell into two main categories. The first concerned the need for public money to be allocated to the industry. That public investment should be targeted in two key areas—implementation of the national strategic technology acquisition plan, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central spoke of in detail, and an improved allocation of launch aid for specific projects.
        The other key area dealt with the need for a coherent strategy. I shall make two brief points about NSTAP and launch aid. NSTAP is not an over-ambitious concept, nor is it greedy in its demand for public funds. It is calling for £1 billion to be invested in this strategic industry over 10 years. I see the grocer on the Government Front Bench smiling. The Minister does not understand how important investment in those industries is. That request for investment would be matched by the industry itself. It must be set against the $17 billion which was mentioned earlier, and which has been laid down for a four-year period in the United States.
        Given the time constraints on me, I shall conclude by saying that I wanted to mention in detail the letters that Rolls-Royce sent to members of the Committee and to hon. Members who are interested in the industry. However, I draw the Minister's attention to a letter that refers to the importance of the recommendations in relation to the NSTAP report and to launch aid. Rolls-Royce is not a company with its hands out, greedily dipping into the taxpayer's pocket. It contributed greatly to the well-being of the country. If the Minister has not already read that letter, it would be well worth him taking the time to do so.
        Another comment was made about the Select Committee's report. Recommendation 19 set out a request, which was not over-radical, for a coherent strategy for the industry. The response from the Minister and the DTI was nothing short of scandalous. It is worth repeating a quote about that response. It is little wonder that Sir Barry Duxbury of the Society of British Aerospace Companies retorted:
        "Yet the response implied an absence of strategic thinking."
        That absence has major implications for tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. If the Government do not decide soon what they will do, we shall not have an industry left that is able to compete with the best in the rest of the world. We have only a short time scale in which to do that. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply to the Select Committee report.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Committee on their excellent report. The maintenance of a successful United
        770
        Kingdom aerospace industry is of even greater importance to Northern Ireland than it is to Great Britain, although that importance has been outlined by hon. Members with constituency interests on the mainland.
        Short's of Belfast is the oldest aircraft manufacturing company in the world. It was founded by the three Short brothers at the beginning of the century. It was in Government ownership from 1943 until it was privatised in 1989 and then acquired by Bombardier. Since privatisation, almost £200 million has been invested in a programme of re-equipping and modernisation. That programme is nearing completion. Annual sales have doubled. The company has returned to profitability and, as Northern Ireland's largest employer, with more than 7,000 employees and approximately 3,000 jobs among local suppliers, its growth reflects Short's success.
        The company manufactures the Short's Tucano military trainer under licence and designs and manufactures aircraft components and structures for Boeing, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, Fokker, Lear Jet, Canadair and others. Most of Short's business is based on international collaboration with other Bombardier aerospace companies, including a partnership with Fokker and Deutsche Aerospace on the Fokker 100 aircrft, joint ventures with Hurel-Dubois for engine nacelles and with Thompson in missiles. The design and manufacture of guided weapons systems for very short-range air defence remains a profitable aspect of Short's business.
        Since privatisation, the company has made rapid progress as a result of focused investment and radically improved manufacturing processes. Its competitiveness and capability within the aerospace industry has never been better. The company is in a sound position to cope with the recession in the commercial aircraft industry and the decline in military orders, but today's strength could be threatened in the long term unless there is closer co-operation between the Government and the British aerospace industry as a whole in the immediate future.
        The United Kingdom industry is crying out for a national plan to maintain the United Kingdom's technological advantage. Adequate levels of Government support for research and development, launch aid and other investments is essential to safeguard the industry in the future. The investment programme at Short's, the process improvements, freedom to harness the skills, effort and enthusiasm of the work force and competitiveness in a commercial environment have made Short's the best cost producer in the Bombardier aerospace empire. Since privatisation, the company is putting more and more business into Northern Ireland through its local support development progamme.
        I have some questions for the Minister. Have the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence got the same level of commitment as the United Kingdom aerospace industry to maintaining that industry at the leading edge and in a position of strength in world markets? Have the DTI, the MOD and the Treasury reached an agreement yet with the United Kingdom aerospace industry on the long-term future plans for that industry? Do the Government accept that there should be a national technology acquisition plan? What proposals does the DTI have to support and encourage the United Kingdom aerospace industry to continue to invest, even through recession, in new project development and new

        771
        technology acquisition to prevent our international competitors from achieving advantage through their on-going investment programmes?
        9.35 pm
        Mr. Derek Fatchett: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and his Committee on producing the unanimous report. Those of us who have sat through the whole debate have seen that unanimity reflected in every comment. It will not be unique that the only discordant voices will be from the Government Benches, when all the arguments made by the Minister's hon. Friends and my hon. Friends will be ignored and the Government's line that it should all be left to market forces will be repeated.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) made two important points, about the GATT negotations and about the aerospace industry. I am sure that all hon. Members feel that we need transparency in the aerospace industry—particularly in view of the American subsidies—or the European industry will be placed at a considerable disadvantage. I hope that the Government, through the European Union, will take a strong line on that.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley also mentioned the skills needed in the aerospace industry and those that have already been developed. A key aspect of this important industry is not just its contribution to the balance of payments or that it is a high-tech industry, but that it is one of the most highly skilled industries in the country, if not the highest. Some 40 per cent. of the country's skilled and technical personnel are employed in the aerospace or aerospace-related industry. We cannot afford to lose that skilled manpower and investment, and my hon. Friend was right to draw that to our attention.
        The hon. Member for Ayre (Mr. Gallie) made a cogent case for public intervetion and mentioned the spin-off that it has for the public and private sectors. It is a rare occasion, but his contribution is worth another look. I suggest that he reads it again, because he will find that, instead of somebody who strongly believes in the market, he is sombody who believes strongly in public intervention.
        The hon. Member for Ayr made a very strong case for Jetstream showed his concern for it. His concern is shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). They also support the Committee's recommendation in relation to launch aid and the need for public expenditure in that respect.
        Two key issues came out of the debate. The first was defence procurement and the extent to which the aerospace industry relies on it. In paragraph 108 of the Select Committee's report, an unnamed witness from GEC made comments which strongly sum up the arguments in favour of some system of defence diversification:
        "if we are not careful, almost a classic recipe for eventual run-down and decline of the aerospace industry, because the Ministry of Defence is, in aerospace terms, the main procurer/buyer without having the responsibility for the health of the industry. The DTI, of course, has responsibility for the health but has not got the clout to actually do anything about it."
        That summarises the problem between our commitment to defence and the rundown in defence expenditure. The hon.
        772
        Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an interesting contribution about defence procurement and the role for the Government, but, along with every other speaker, he recognised the important point that defence expenditure will decline in the future.
        When one compares the comments made to the Select Committee by a representative of GEC with the response from the Minister, it is clear that there is a great gulf between the attitude expressed by one of our leading companies and that of the Government. The Minister said that matters should simply be left to the market. He said it was up to individual companies to sort out their own futures.
        No one would accuse GEC of being a socialist organisation or of being anti-market. It is clear, however, that that company has recognised something that the Government are either too blind or too stupid to see, because it appreciates that the Government have a role to play if we are to keep the skills and technology that are tied up in the aerospace industry. President Clinton and other Heads of Government have recognised that, but our Government believe that matters should simply be left to the market.
        I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister for Industry will recognise that the Government should make a different response to the calls from industry and that they should recognise the importance of skills and technology. At the end of the debate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central and all those who supported him in the Select Committee and in the House tonight, that the Government accept their responsibility to help those companies that rely on defence orders to diversify their skills and technologies into new civilian-based activities.
        The first issue to consider is defence procurement and its future. The second issue is the role of the Government and their responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) was right to say that our defence industry competes not only against other foreign industries, but against their Governments. The key issue that we must recognise is that, as my hon. Friend said, this is a global industry in which the players are not simply companies, because in every other country the players are companies and Governments working together.
        The key passage in the Select Committee report is contained in four paragraphs on pages 38 and 39 that discuss the role of Government support. It is worth reminding ourselves that that report is an all-party document and that its recommendations are unanimous. Each of them suggests to the Government that there must be greater public support for various activities relating to the aerospace industry. The reasons set out in those four paragraphs are understood by everyone except the Minister. Everyone else is aware that the British aerospace industry, in common with every other aerospace industry, needs long-term investment in research and development. The financial market cannot satisfy those needs, so the answer must be for the Government to adopt a more proactive role. Labour and Conservative members of the Select Committee recognised the need for additional expenditure.
        Apart from funding, hon. Members have also identified another problem that confronts British industry and British aerospace industries in particular. Those industries suffer from one other crucial weakness: they simply do not know

        773
        where the Government are going strategically. There is no clear definition of the relationship between Government and industry.
        I know that that may come as a surprise to you, Madam Speaker. I also know that you read widely, and I am sure that you read the publication of the President of the Board of Trade on politics and industry, which appeared when he was going around the rubber chicken circuit, running his campaign against the then Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said in that work that the aerospace industry was the key industry that Government had to support and with which they should define a proper role.
        That is the view of the President of the Board of Trade. Unfortunately, he did not seem to have gone from one office to another in the Department of Trade and Industry to explain that role to the Minister of State who is now responsible. It is so clear and frustrating and comes out in the evidence and conclusions of the Select Committee report, that British industrialists do not know what the Government expect or what they can expect of the Government. We often hear the phrase that we need a level playing field. The Government cannot define the playing field because they feel that they have no responsibility in that direction. We and the Select Committee want the Government to play a clear role in defining their purpose and function in relation to the aerospace industry.
        Many questions have been raised, which the Minister would like to answer. What I should like to hear from the Minister—crucial and sadly lacking in any contribution that he makes to this or any other debate—is agreement that we need a strategic view and a vision of partnership between Government and industry and a recognition that that would help and assist an important industry such as British Aerospace. The Committee report has set that out and it is now up to Ministers to live up to that challenge. I fear that they will fail yet again.
        9.45 pm
        The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I shall begin with three lots of congratulations. First, I congratulate and thank the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the painstaking and thorough work in its report on the aerospace industry. In the comments that the Committee made on the Government's response, I was pleased to see that we have made "a useful beginning" in translating its recommendations into action. I know that Select Committees are not always so generous to the Government, and for a moment in tonight's debate I thought that that generosity was slipping away. I also congratulate all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken. I hope that what they said has reaffirmed the importance that the House attaches to the industry.
        Thirdly, I congratulate the industry itself. In 1992, in the midst of one of the worst downturns in the civil and military aerospace industry since the war, United Kingdom companies continued to perform well with sales of over £10 billion, exports worth £7 billion and a positive balance of trade of well over £2 billion, and was one of the major sources of employment with more than 137,000 employees.
        As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) said, it is something that we are really good at. Plenty of companies in the sector are good examples of world leaders— British Aerospace in military technology and the design of large and advanced wings, Rolls-Royce
        774
        plc across a whole range of civil and military engines, GEC, Westland and, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) mentioned, Short's, a company that I have visited on more than one occasion and one that has transformed to become among the world leaders in its field.
        However, as hon. Members have said, there are problems. There have been job losses and the industry has recently suffered. I share the concern that has been stressed about those who have lost their jobs. Nevertheless, those losses must be placed in context. No person or business is entirely immune to market conditions. That even includes the mighty Boeing company, which recently announced production cuts that will lead to job losses of 3,000 now and of 27,000 by the middle of next year.
        Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister say whether the airbus issue has been withdrawn from the GATT talks tonight? Will he tell the House what the latest situation is, as I have a big constituency say in that decision?
        Mr. Sainsbury: I know of the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest. I shall come to the GATT situation later. I have been in the House for three years and I do not know how up to date I will be—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant three hours: the situation is changing hourly, not just yearly.
        Hon. Members will know of many other job losses throughout the world in the industry— times are hard. However, I do not believe that they will remain so for ever or even for long. In those circumstances, obviously the industry must ensure that it emerges from the recession lean, fit and ready to take on the challenges and opportunities of the longer-term growth in the market.
        The primary responsibility lies with the industry to restructure, forge international alliances, plan for the future, benchmark itself against its leading competitors and ensure that it operates at peak efficiency. Governments can help by getting the economic climate right, emphasising the need for competitiveness and establishing sensible rules governing world trade such as GATT. Ultimately it is for the industry to ensure its own future by effective management.
        There has been a lot of talk today about the overall policy framework. Indeed, much of the Select Committee's work has been to look at what the Government's role is or should be. In its recommendation 19, the Committee asked the Government to set out our overall policy framework in more detail. If the Government are to have a sensible understanding with the aerospace industry of where our and their priorities lies there must be adequate communication between us. Helping United Kingdom business to compete in world markets is our shared objective. Therefore, we shall continue our close dialogue with companies, trade associations and the people of the industry. Within that framework, industry can make clear to us its priorities.
        However, we do not believe that it would be sensible for the Government to make a once and for all strategic statement. After all, the Government are not the key player.
        Mr. Caborn: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Sainsbury: No. I must press on. Time is limited. The Government have a responsibility to set a climate in which industry can prosper by their economic and fiscal policies, by establishing a free and open trade regime and,

        775
        in industries such as aerospace where the market finds it difficult to respond to all the industry's needs, by taking specific measures such as launch aid and the civil aircraft research and demonstration programme. It is for industry to take the lead in ensuring that it can win in world markets.
        The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and several other hon. Members referred to the national strategic technology acquisition plan. The Committee's report placed a great deal of weight on it. The plan was produced by the aviation committee—a useful committee set up to advise the Government. The document is extremely useful and to some extent groundbreaking, as I hope that I made clear last July when I adopted the technological priorities which it contains on behalf of my Department.
        By producing the NSTAP when it did, the aeronautics industry has led the way in carrying through the approach to technology foresight and the prioritisation of research and technology which was set out in the Government's science and engineering technology White Paper "Realising our Potential". That is not to say that NSTAP is a simple and self-sufficient list of instructions which one needs only to follow closely to guarantee immediate technological enlightenment.
        Although the plan is a detailed and thorough document, a considerable amount of work is needed if it is to be applied in practice. First, the generic categories that it represents are to be broken down into more specific areas of direct application. Secondly, those categories need to be mapped on to the research effort that is already going on, especially in industry, my Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Science and Engineering Research Council, academia and Europe.
        Until we are clear about the range of current activity, we cannot identify the gaps and overlaps that may be limiting the effectiveness of our efforts in research and technology acquisition. Such painstaking work is an essential prerequisite in assessing whether extra effort is needed.
        In order to achieve this, a working group involving industry, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, SERC and the Office of Science and Technology is carrying out pilot studies which are intended to refine the analysis in the NSTAP. That involves taking three category 1 technologies, assessing industry's needs in the light of commercial opportunities, relative priorities and benefits to the United Kingdom, and matching the results against existing industry and public sector programmes. Those studies will take some months, after which we can judge the best way to proceed.
        Mr. Foulkes rose—
        Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot give way, as time is limited, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
        That is not to say that NSTAP has only had an influence in the world of theory and not in the real world. The priorities set out in the plan have served as a guide in the selection of the project to be supported under the second CARAD programme. Those priorities are also helping to define the areas that should be emphasised under the European Community framework 4 programme.
        By its very nature, research and technology acquisition does not normally allow for a precise identification of the
        776
        appropriate level of resource for any given project. If I may explain by example; we might be seeking to identify an alloy with certain properties. We could have one team in one lab working on the research part time, or several teams in several laboratories working full time. One cannot know in advance whether the first or the second team will arrive at the right answer. The pharmaceutical industry is a good example of that.
        However, in CARAD we are not dealing with just one project but a range. My Department's second and third year CARAD programme was rigorously assessed to ensure a clear focus on the priorities that have been identified by the industry. It must be for Government to determine the priorities between the various demands of industry and the economy as a whole and, therefore, the resources to be allocated to CARAD.
        We take fully into account the importance of the industry, the range of priorities that have been identified, the importance of maintaining our technological competitiveness and the very substantial resources being devoted to research and development for the aerospace industry by that industry, the Ministry of Defence and other publicly funded science and technology programmes in Whitehall, the science base and Europe.
        It is against that background that I have to tell the House that I do not believe that any reliable or precise estimate can be made of the right level of public support for research and technology acquisition. It is a matter of judgment in the light of all the circumstances and subject to regular review as those circumstances change. Indeed, the very process of review, involving close liaison between my Department, the industry and other organisations, is building the partnership that we need to bring the NSTAP priorities to fruition and hence to influence the research priorities in industry, Whitehall, defence, the science base and Europe.
        In the limited time available I do not intend to comment directly on the Government's role as a customer. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, as hon. Members will have seen, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been present and has noted what has been said.
        Some hon. Members have spoken—notably the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—as if the Government did nothing for the industry. So I make no apology for running once again through the support that the industry already enjoys, since it is the envy of many other equally significant sectors.
        Since 1979, we have made available more than £1.5 billion in launch aid, regional development grants and support for research and development programmes. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has provided £735 million in export credit guarantees during the past three years. Launch aid is unique to the aerospace industry, which is the only sector with its own dedicated DTI research budget. The House should recognise the considerable scale of support that the industry has had and continues to enjoy.
        The GATT Uruguay round has been mentioned and it is reaching what seems to be a nail-biting conclusion. We have been actively working, through the EC and directly, to press for more equitable and comprehensive disciplines on the trade in civil aircraft, their engines and equipment.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) mentioned Jetstream. I know that he takes a great interest in that company and I look forward to meeting him and the

        777
        managing director later this week. Jetstream has made it clear that job losses were necessary to improve productivity, reduce costs and reflect present demand. Prestwick has benefited from previous Government assistance and substantial regional selective assistance is on offer from the Scottish Office for future development. Jetstream's current problems arise from the weakness in the market and the world-wide overcapacity and not from the lack of Government support. They are seeking a more international, collaborative partner to put their business on a sounder footing, and we are supporting the company when asked to do so.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr mentioned the subsidies received by others. We must act, within international rules, to challenge subsidies offered to overseas competitors. That does not always bring quick results. Jetstream met my Department last week to discuss its evidence and we are continuing to discuss how best to pursue the matter.
        At the start of my speech I paid tribute to the industry. It has received considerable support from the Government and we shall continue to support it. It is one of our leading exports; it provides employment throughout the country; and it stands at the leading edge of technology. We should celebrate its success, and I am pleased to do so tonight.
        I apologise to those hon. Members who have made points to which I have not responded. I shall read the debate and I hope to respond to them in writing. I apologise for the shortness of time and I am grateful to those hon. Members who contributed to the debate.
        It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).
        MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Questions on Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94 (Class II, Vote 2 and Class IV, Vote 2).

      Class II, Vote 2
      Question put,
      That a supplementary sum not exceeding £98,121,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1994 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services:——
      The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 54.

      Division No. 26]

      [10.00 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Beggs, Roy

      Alexander, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Arbuthnot, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Booth, Hartley

      Ashby, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Atkins, Robert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Bowis, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brazier, Julian

      Bates, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      778

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hague, William

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Burns, Simon

      Hannam, Sir John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Butcher, John

      Harris, David

      Butler, Peter

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butterfill, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hendry, Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Cash, William

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clappison, James

      Horam, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Congdon, David

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jack, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cran, James

      Jessel, Toby

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

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan, Alan

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dunn, Bob

      Knapman, Roger

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Eggar, Tim

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

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evennett, David

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Faber, David

      Legg, Barry

      Fabricant, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lidington, David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lord, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Luff, Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lyell, Rt Hon sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      French, Douglas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      Mackay, Andrew

      Gale, Roger

      Maclean, David

      Gallie, Phil

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gardiner, Sir George

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Garnier, Edward

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Gill, Christopher

      Madel, David

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Malone, Gerald

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mans, Keith

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marlow, Tony

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mates, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      779

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Merchant, Piers

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mills, Iain

      Spring, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sproat, Iain

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Steen, Anthony

      Needham, Richard

      Stephen, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stern, Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sykes, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thomason, Roy

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Paice, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pawsey, James

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

      Pickles, Eric

      Tracey, Richard

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tredinnick, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Tyler, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Richards, Rod

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Riddick, Graham

      Walden, George

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Watts, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Whitney, Ray

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Whittingdale, John

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sackville, Tom

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Sims, Roger

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Speed, Sir Keith

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Foulkes, George

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fyfe, Maria

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

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gunnell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hain, Peter

      Coffey, Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Ingram, Adam

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

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Dewar, Donald

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Dixon, Don

      Jowell, Tessa

      Dobson, Frank

      Lewis, Terry

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Litherland, Robert

      Dowd, Jim

      McKelvey, William

      Eastham, Ken

      McMaster, Gordon

      Etherington, Bill

      Maxton, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Morgan, Rhodri

      780

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Vaz, Keith

      Mudie, George

      Watson, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Welsh, Andrew

      O'Hara, Edward

      Wilson, Brian

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Winnick, David

      Prescott, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rogers, Allan

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Michael Clapham.

      Question agreed to.

      Class IV, Vote 2
      Question put,
      That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on regional development grants, exchange risk and other losses, selective assistance to individual industries and firms, United Kingdom contributions arising from its commitments under the International Natural Rubber Agreement, a strategic mineral stockpile, support for the aerospace and shipbuilding industries, assistance to redundant steel and coal workers, for expenditure related to petroleum licensing and royalty, for other payments and for loans to trading funds.
      The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 72.

      Division No. 27]

      [10.14 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cash, William

      Alexander, Richard

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Churchill, Mr

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Clappison, James

      Amess, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coe, Sebastian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Congdon, David

      Ashby, David

      Conway, Derek

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Atkins, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Baldry, Tony

      Couchman, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Cran, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

      Bates, Michael

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Beggs, Roy

      Day, Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bendall, Vivian

      Devlin, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      Booth, Hartley

      Duncan, Alan

      Boswell, Tim

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bowden, Andrew

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowis, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bright, Graham

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evennett, David

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Faber, David

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Burns, Simon

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Burt, Alistair

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Butcher, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Butler, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Butterfill, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      781

      French, Douglas

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Fry, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gale, Roger

      Mates, Michael

      Gallie, Phil

      Mawhinney, Dr Brain

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Merchant, Piers

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Milligan, Stephen

      Garnier, Edward

      Mills, Iain

      Gill, Christopher

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Monro, Sir Roger

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gorst, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Needham, Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hague, William

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Norris, Steve

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hannam, Sir John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Harris, David

      Page, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Paice, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Pawsey, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Pickles, Eric

      Hicks, Robert

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Horam, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Richards, Rod

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Riddick, Graham

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

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Knox, Sir David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Legg, Barry

      Spring, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Sproat, Iain

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lidington, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lightbown, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stern, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Luff, Peter

      Sumberg, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sweeney, Walter

      Maclean, David

      Sykes, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Madel, David

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Malone, Gerald

      Thomason, Roy

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Marlow, Tony

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      782

      Thurnham, Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whittingdale, John

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

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tracey, Richard

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Trend, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Viggers, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walden, George

      Wood, Timothy

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Yeo, Tim

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Waller, Gary

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Watts, John

      Mr. Andrew Mackay.

      Wells, Bowen

      NOES

      Bayley, Hugh

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Boyes, Roland

      Jowell, Tessa

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

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Litherland, Robert

      Cann, Jamie

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      McCartney, Ian

      Coffey, Ann

      McKelvey, William

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Dewar, Donald

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Dowd, Jim

      Miller, Andrew

      Eastham, Ken

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Enright, Derek

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Etherington, Bill

      Mudie, George

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Hara, Edward

      Flynn, Paul

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Rendel, David

      Foulkes, George

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Salmond, Alex

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Gunnell, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Hain, Peter

      Watson, Mike

      Hinchliffe, David

      Welsh, Andrew

      Hoyle, Doug

      Wilson, Brian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Winnick, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Illsley, Eric

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ingram, Adam

      Mr. Dennis Skinner and

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Mr. Michael Clapham.

      Question agreed to.
      MADAM SPEAKER then put forthwith the Questions which she was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

      SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94
      Question put,
      That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,061,483,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 2 of Session 1993–94.
      The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 53.

      Division No. 28]

      [10.27 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Alexander, Richard

      Amess, David

      783

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Ashby, David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Forman, Nigel

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Baldry, Tony

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bates, Michael

      French, Douglas

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fry, Peter

      Beggs, Roy

      Gale, Roger

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Gallie, Phil

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bendall, Vivian

      Garnier, Edward

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Booth, Hartley

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gorst, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Graham

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Harris, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burns, Simon

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawksley, Warren

      Butcher, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Butler, Peter

      Hendry, Charles

      Butterfill, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Horam, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

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

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Clappison, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Colvin, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Congdon, David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Couchman, James

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Cran, James

      Key, Robert

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

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

      Dover, Den

      Knox, Sir David

      Duncan, Alan

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dunn, Bob

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Legg, Barry

      Eggar, Tim

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lightbown, David

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Faber, David

      Lord, Michael

      784

      Luff, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sims, Roger

      Maclean, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Maclennan, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Madel, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Malone, Gerald

      Spring, Richard

      Mans, Keith

      Sproat, Iain

      Marlow, Tony

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mates, Michael

      Stephen, Michael

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stern, Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Streeter, Gary

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Sumberg, David

      Milligan, Stephen

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mills, Iain

      Sykes, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thomason, Roy

      Needham, Richard

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

      Norris, Steve

      Tracey, Richard

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Tredinnick, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trend, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Page, Richard

      Tyler, Paul

      Paice, James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Viggers, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Pickles, Eric

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waller, Gary

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rendel, David

      Watts, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Richards, Rod

      Whitney, Ray

      Riddick, Graham

      Whittingdale, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wilkinson, John

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Willetts, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wood, Timothy

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Sackville, Tom

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. Irvine Patnick, and

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Dixon, Don

      Bayley, Hugh

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Boyes, Roland

      Dowd, Jim

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

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Callaghan, Jim

      Eastham, Ken

      Cann, Jamie

      Enright, Derek

      Clapham, Michael

      Etherington, Bill

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Flynn, Paul

      Coffey, Ann

      Foulkes, George

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Fyfe, Maria

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

      Hain, Peter

      Dewar, Donald

      Hinchliffe, David

      785

      Hoyle, Doug

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Illsley, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Meale, Alan

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Healey)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Miller, Andrew

      Litherland, Robert

      Morgan, Rhodri

      McCartney, Ian

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      McKelvey, William

      Mudie, George

      786

      Mullin, Chris

      Wilson, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Winnick, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walley, Joan

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Watson, Mike

      Mr. Terry Lewis.

      Welsh, Andrew

      Question agreed to.

Estimates, 1994–95 (Vote on Account)
Question put,
That a sum not exceeding £92,463,143,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1995 as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of Session 1993–94.
The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 62.

Division No. 29]

[10.39 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Aitken, Jonathan

Dover, Den

Alexander, Richard

Duncan, Alan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Dunn, Bob

Amess, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Arbuthnot, James

Dykes, Hugh

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Eggar, Tim

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Ashby, David

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Aspinwall, Jack

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Evennett, David

Baldry, Tony

Faber, David

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Fabricant, Michael

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bates, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Batiste, Spencer

Fishburn, Dudley

Beggs, Roy

Forman, Nigel

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bellingham, Henry

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bendall, Vivian

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Biffen, Rt Hon John

French, Douglas

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fry, Peter

Booth, Hartley

Gale, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Gallie, Phil

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gardiner, Sir George

Bowis, John

Garnier, Edward

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Brandreth, Gyles

Gillan, Cheryl

Brazier, Julian

Goodland, Rt Hon Alastair

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorst, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Burt, Alistair

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Butcher, John

Hague, William

Butler, Peter

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hannam, Sir John

Carrington, Matthew

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carttiss, Michael

Harris, David

Cash, William

Haselhurst, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sydney

Hawksley, Warren

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hendry, Charles

Coe, Sebastian

Hicks, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Congdon, David

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Conway, Derek

Horam, John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Cran, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

Hunter, Andrew

Day, Stephen

Jenkin, Bernard

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jessel, Toby

Devlin, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

788

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Key, Robert

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sackville, Tom

Kirkwood, Archy

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knapman, Roger

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knox, Sir David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shersby, Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sims, Roger

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Legg, Barry

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Leigh, Edward

Soames, Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lidington, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Lightbown, David

Spring, Richard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sproat, Iain

Lord, Michael

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Luff, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Lynne, Ms Liz

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, Andrew

Stephen, Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sumberg, David

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Sweeney, Walter

Madel, David

Sykes, John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thomason, Roy

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mates, Michael

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Merchant, Piers

Thurnham, Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Milligan, Stephen

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

Mills, Iain

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tredinnick, David

Moate, Sir Roger

Trend, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Twinn, Dr Ian

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tyler, Paul

Moss, Malcolm

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Needham, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Walden, George

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Norris, Steve

Waterson, Nigel

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Watts, John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wells, Bowen

Ottaway, Richard

Whitney, Ray

Page, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Paice, James

Widdecombe, Ann

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wilkinson, John

Pawsey, James

Willetts, David

Pickles, Eric

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Powell, William (Corby)

Wood, Timothy

Rendel, David

Yeo, Tim

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Richards, Rod

Riddick, Graham

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Michael Brown

789

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Armstrong, Hilary

Illsley, Eric

Bayley, Hugh

Ingram, Adam

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Bermingham, Gerald

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Boyes, Roland

Lewis, Terry

Bradley, Keith

McCartney, Ian

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

McKelvey, William

Callaghan, Jim

McMaster, Gordon

Cann, Jamie

Martlew, Eric

Clapham, Michael

Maxton, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Meale, Alan

Coffey, Ann

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Miller, Andrew

Cryer, Bob

Morgan, Rhodri

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Morley, Elliot

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

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Dewar, Donald

Mudie, George

Dixon, Don

Mullin, Chris

Donohoe, Brian H.

O'Hara, Edward

Dowd, Jim

Pickthall, Colin

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Pike, Peter L.

Eastham, Ken

Salmond, Alex

Etherington, Bill

Skinner, Dennis

Fatchett, Derek

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

Fisher, Mark

Walley, Joan

Flynn, Paul

Watson, Mike

Foulkes, George

Welsh, Andrew

Fyfe, Maria

Winnick, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Hain, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Hanson, David

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Hoyle, Doug

Mr. Robert Litherland.

Question agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Estimates, 1994–95 (Vote on Account)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1994 and 1995: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

Statutory Sick Pay Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
10.53 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in consequences of the Act by a Minister of the Crown.
The resolution is in a form that will be familiar to the House, so I shall not weary hon. Members with a lengthy explanation of it. Sufficent to say that the Statutory Sick Pay Bill abolishes the right of employers to recover 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay paid to their employees from their remittances of national insurance contributions. It also requires employers to pay statutory sick pay to working women who fall sick and become incapable of work before reaching the age of 65. Both proposals will result in increased expenditure by the Government in their role as an employer. Hence the need for a money resolution, which I commend to the House.
10.25 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I am conscious of the fact that I rise at quite a late hour to initiate what I imagine will be a short debate on the resolution.
It is a tribute to the co-operation extended in the House and the speed with which we do our business that we have managed to dispose of four votes in a smidgen over 50 minutes. That does not suggest tardiness by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I am also aware that the Committee of Selection—I am not sure in what particular human form—is waiting in the wings with some quite important motions. Therefore, it behoves us not to hold up the House unduly. I want to raise a number of issues with the Minister, however, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman, being a courteous man, will want to respond and explain the exact significance of the money resolution.
We find ourselves in a somewhat odd position, because we are debating the money resolution before we have the guillotine, the Second Reading or any other proceedings. Although my memory goes back 20 years in the House, my naivety or comparative inexperience means that I am used to debating the money resolution after the Second Reading. The more cynical among us remember occasions in which the money resolution has been used as an overflow debate for those who did not get called in the main show. Their contributions may have stretched the rules of procedure to the limit, but they were able to put some of their arguments.
People who are wiser in the ways of the House than I am, and to whose knowledge I defer, tell me that it is not without precedent to discuss the money resolution before the Second Reading. To discuss it before the guillotine motion, however, is rather odd, but then, as I am sure that you have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with an unusual situation. We are, for example, specially empowered by the House as a result of a motion that we discussed on Friday to put down amendments for consideration in Committee, before the guillotine or the Second Reading. It is in that wrong-way-round world that we now find ourselves discussing the money resolution.

791
When the Minister no doubt courteously replies, he might deal briefly with whether it is normal to have such an order of events, or whether we have put the cart before the House. That is one of a number of metaphors that I intend to mix in my comparatively short speech.

The Minister was good enough to give the House a potted description of the Bill. I am conscious that we are not debating its merit now, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it deals with substantial sums. Those employers who are responsible for 85 per cent. of the work force will have to find £750 million. Some offset for those employers is proposed in other legislation covering reduced employers' national insurance contributions. Whether matters will be made neutral as a result is a matter for debate.
As the Minister also said, we will, at a later date, discuss the rather interesting peculiarity by which the concept of retirement age is replaced with the definition of 65 years. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that means that women over 60 years, but not yet aged 65, will be able to draw statutory sick pay and their state retirement pension. The Minister is more expert than I and he will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the rules on overlapping benefits will not apply. It will therefore be possible for a woman between the age of 60 and 65 to receive both statutory sick pay and the state retirement pension. Otherwise, I hastily concede, the peculiarity will exist only until the year 2020. But that, as they say, is not tomorrow. It is an interesting situation which I am sure that we shall debate later.
Although substantial sums of money are at stake, we are told clearly in the explanatory and financial memorandum that the effect of the Bill on public service manpower is nil. It says:
"The Bill is expected to have no effect on public sector manpower."
For all that, we are considering a motion which invites us to consider expenses incurred as a consequence of the Act by a Minister of the Crown. I do not suppose that that means expenses incurred in a personal sense. I should have thought that that was a narrow interpretation of the motion. We are talking about the administration expenses within the Minister's Department. I presume that it has that rather wider meaning.
I should like the Minister to say a word or two about exactly what the expenses are. After all, we know that the Bill will bring about a reduction in public spending, or perhaps have a neutral effect, if we take into account the offset and widen it to take in the secondary legislation that affects the employers' contribution. As we have been told that the Bill will have no effect on manpower—or personnel power—and as the Bill is intended to produce a reduction in public expenditure, which suggests a reduction in the work load, or at best will have a neutral effect, I am not clear where the additional administrative expenses arise. I put this as a serious point to the Minister. He owes us some explanation, because there is no reduction in manpower.
It would not be unreasonable to expect a reduction in staff responsibilities, so why do we require the money resolution? After all, there will not be the substantial—I am sure that it must be substantial—administrative coming and going and expense which is at present the consequence of paying the 80 per cent. of sick pay reclaimed by the majority of employers. Clearly, that must involve a great
792
deal of paperwork. It must involve the monitoring, processsing and satisfying of claims. If all that is to be swept away, that is a big plus which presumably would result in a reduction in the administration expenses for which the Minister is responsible. It is certainly not clear to me where the additonal expenses, which not only offset the reductions but overtake them and produce a net gain in expenses, come from.
I want to be fair. Other features of the Bill might give rise to some additional expense, at least in the short term. We know, for example, that the definition of the small employer has been changed and that the sum involved in national insurance contributions will rise from £16,000 to £20,000. That may bring in a few more employers who formerly were not categorised as small employers, but now will be. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister can give us an estimate of how many employers will be dragged into that category as a result of the change.
Even if we assume that the change is significant—at present only 15 per cent. of the work force is employed by employers in that category—I do not see how it can overtake the very large cut in administrative expenses that I would expect from the loss of the responsibility to pay the 80 per cent., which is the main thrust of the legislation.
Mr. David Willetts: Does the hon. Member accept that, in his zeal to prove that the money resolution is unnecessary, he has proved that the substantive Bill is extremely sensible?
Mr. Dewar: That is extremely ingenious. The hon. Member, whose constituency I cannot remember—[HON. MEMBERS: "Havant."] Thank you. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is noted for his ingenuity, which has stood him in good stead in many debates. He is right; in broad terms, I would welcome a reduction in administrative expenditure. However, I would not do so when it is bought at the expense of damage to the competitiveness of British industry and to the position of those people who have been evicted from invalidity benefit, have failed to qualify for incapacity benefit and who may find their position in the job market prejudiced.
Those are not matters that I can canvass now, although I have been tempted by the hon. Member for Havant. However, if he is telling me that the only argument in favour of the Bill—the decisive argument in his mind—is the fact that there is a small reduction in administrative expenses, which might mean that we do not need a money resolution, that is not the test that I would apply. There are much more serious arguments and, in very short order, we shall be able to continue those later this week, unfortunately much restricted by the guillotine.
My final argument in this passage of my speech is that even if one takes the retirement age, translated into the 65 cut-off point for men and women, that could be seen as a simplification—perhaps after an initial period. Again, I would have expected administrative savings, so it reinforces and buttresses my argument about why we need this resolution, which is taking up the time of the House.
I hope that the Minister of State will offer an explanation. Perhaps a money resolution is an automatic process; perhaps it is a sort of Pavlovian reaction within the Department or among the parliamentary draftsmen; or perhaps it is there as a sort of safety net. After all, we know

793
that under present management the Department of Social Security is very fond of safety nets and looks almost longingly towards any such concept.
I do not think that that is good enough for the House. To mix metaphors—as I threaten to do—if it is a belt and braces situation, in which the money resolution exists just in case, we should not be troubled or bothered with it. The onus falls squarely on the Minister of State to explain away the substantial administrative savings, which seem likely to result from this jettisoning of a major state responsibility, which is to help British industry to remain competitive. The Minister has to explain that away and tell us from where the increase will come that will more than offset the reduction in expenditure that may result.
I recognise that the Minister of State is not a Treasury Minister, but he is obviously expert in such matters, and is no doubt well briefed. I am asking him to complete my education—[Laughter.]—on this narrow subject. I recognise that we are all capable of improvement over a wide field—[Interruption.] Let me explain, as it is an important question and it illustrates my puzzlement. No doubt the Minister of State can deal with it quickly.
As I understand it there will not be a money resolution on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, which is running in tandem with this Bill. Perhaps there is a simple explanation for that, but I do not understand it, because that Bill will raise a substantial sum for the Treasury. However, that is not the point, and I entirely accept that. I should have thought that administrative expenses would be incurred by the change in the system, if only because there will be more paperwork and changes in the flow of money coming in. I should have thought that some sort of administrative consequences would be inevitable from that Bill. Yet we obviously do not need a money resolution there.
I hope that I have argued reasonably succinctly about the likely savings on the administrative expenses side. If we can do without a money resolution in the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, I do not see why we must be burdened in this way in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
The Minister can no doubt explain my final point because, again, it is a "side-way entrance" to the argument about the money resolution. It concerns the position of Northern Ireland. Although I recognise that Northern Ireland has always had a different system and has been seen as a different entity, clause 4(3) of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill says:
"There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of this Act."
Basically, that is what we are also authorising in the money resolution. There seems to be a duplication, but I suppose that that is how the system works. However, clause 4(4) says:
"Section 3 and this section extend to Northern Ireland",
but provided in brackets is the important exception, "except subsection (3)".
So any talk of money being provided by Parliament to cover Ministers' expenses will apply on mainland Britain but not in Northern Ireland. I presume that that is because an equivalent to the money resolution applies to Northern Ireland. If administrative expenses occur on mainland Britain and are covered by a money resolution, parallel expenses will inevitably flow from the same changes being introduced in Northern Ireland. I understand that there is no
794
money resolution for Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is specifically excluded from the arrangements that we are discussing by the exclusion in clause 4(4).
When the Minister replies, I hope that he can advise me on the arrangement in Northern Ireland, because those expenses will obviously arise. I presume that they will have to be met by money provided by Parliament, but not under the current arrangements and certainly not by the Bill. Why does no money resolution cover Ireland? Where is the alternative provision? We are then entitled to ask why we need a money resolution for mainland Britain.
I hope that those are reasonably understandable points. They have raised logical and interlinking questions in my mind. As I do not wish unnecessarily to prolong the debate, I am happy to leave it at that point and listen, in a minute or two, to the explanation which the Minister of State will provide.
11.12 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to follow the excellent example set by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) by raising just one or two questions that reinforce some of the pertinent questions that he raised.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we are in this position. There may have been a breakdown in the negotiations between the two major parties through the usual channels, to which I am not a party. I freely offer myself as a bona fide go-between. Being a nice, natural, trustworthy character, I might be able to sort out the problem and everybody might get home for Christmas in better order.
I am pleased to see that the Leader of the House is present. The hon. Member for Garscadden started by making one or two perfectly pertinent procedural points, with potential precedents attached to them. If the Government start willy nilly, without real justification, interfering with the clear understanding that money resolutions follow Second Readings, they will encourage other people to adopt the same tactics in the future. That is not in the best interests of the House. The Minister of State owes us an explanation about why the Government have seen fit to introduce this money resolution before the Bill's Second Reading.
I know that, in general, money resolutions have fallen into desuetude in terms of the real purpose for which they were originally intended, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and one or two others who specialise in the important task. I pay tribute to them because huge sums of money are voted through in money resolutions—not on this Bill, perhaps, but certainly on others.
The House should pay proper attention to money resolutions and the debates on them are of much better quality if they follow Second Reading. For all I know, different hon. Members will be in the Chamber for Second Reading. It is a worrying sign if the usual rules and established precedents and traditions of the House are discarded without valid reason. Of course, I have read in the press of the procedural differences between the two major parties. I cannot understand why the money resolution has been tabled now.
I want to refer to the merits of the money resolution. It is a restricted motion because clause 4(3) of the Bill states:

795
"There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of this Act."
That is a very restricted statement on which to base a money resolution.
The hon. Member for Garscadden was right to press the Minister on his explanation for introducing the money resolution today. As I understood the Minister, he said that the only additional expenses that would be incurred would be in the Government's role as an employer. The right hon. Gentleman must give us a little more to go on than that. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Garscadden and it appears that all that clause 1 does is abolish a right.
Mr. Scott rose—
Mr. Kirkwood: I am about to be enlightened.
Mr. Scott: All that we are discussing tonight is the narrow matter of a money resolution. The Government require money to meet their duties under the Bill. The actual thrust of the Bill will be discussed later in the week. Tonight, we are limited to discussing the money resolution. The hon. Gentleman is at risk of going beyond the scope of that.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am prepared to take guidance on procedure from the Chair, but I am not prepared to take it from the Treasury Bench. I shall repeat my question because I think that it is a valid money resolution question—on what is the money to be spent? Clause 1 simply abolishes a right and entitlement under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. How on earth can that incur administrative expenses? I just do not understand. There may be something hidden in the depths of clause 2, which is an enabling clause. The House should consider carefully giving Ministers power to table regulations on such matters.
Although it may be a matter for substantive debate on Second Reading, the Minister knows that those who speak on behalf of small businesses are unhappy about this sort of legislation. If the Minister is saying that clause 2(1) gives Ministers the power to introduce the sort of changes relating to a new small businesses scheme that we have been hearing about in Budget speeches and so on, it is disgraceful that that should be done by secondary legislation under clause 2(1).
Even if it is true that the Government are introducing a new administrative scheme for small businesses, together with all the other changes that we have heard about in Budget speeches, how on earth will that cost extra money? As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, it should cost less because it saves money—and amen to that. Had the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) seen fit to stay for the Minister's reply to the debate, he might have raised a reasonable question about whether it is right or wrong to save money. Like others, I am in favour of saving money.
The Minister's explanation did not persuade me that he has a case for tabling the money resolution today. I object to the enabling powers in clause 2 if the intention is to introduce substantial changes such as those to which I referred. It is not even clear to me whether the resolutions that would be brought forward by way of regulation, which might cost money, would be by the negative or the affirmative procedure. The Minister would do the House a service if he gave the answer.
796
I am not sure that the money resolution is necessary in any case. Ministers have the ability under national insurance fund and other social security powers to introduce such expenditure without an additional money resolution. No case for one has been made.
Will the additional funding come through departmental expenditure? Will it show up in departmental estimates? Where will right hon. and hon. Members find the increased expenditure that the money resolution presages? It is not clear to me why there are any increases in the first place.
There is no proper justification for this measure. The people who will be affected by the Statutory Sick Pay Bill are afraid of part of its content, and the Minister has not come close to persuading me that the money resolution is proper, appropriate or necessary.
11.20 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The usual procedure for money resolutions has been observed; the Minister moved the resolution as perfunctorily as he possibly could. The House will not let him get away with that tonight, because the resolution is linked with a Bill that, under a resolution yet to be tabled, will be dealt with in some three hours from start to finish—or six hours from start to finish, including the guillotine resolution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That does not have much to do with administrative expenses, does it?
Mr. Cryer: Yes, it does.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not in my judgment.
Mr. Cryer: One problem is that the Deputy Speaker's judgment is always accepted as superior—and I accept it as such. I was merely pointing out that the 45 minutes allocated to a money resolution is usually ignored, but it is being used on this occasion because of the limited time that will be allowed to debate the Bill on the Floor of the House and because the House feels that it is being robbed.
Those 45 minutes should be made use of on every occasion. It is important to obtain an explanation from the Minister in this instance, because there will be little opportunity to obtain one otherwise.
The money resolution allows the Minister to be reimbursed
"for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Statutory Sick Pay Bill".
We know that the Bill will abolish the reimbursement of 80 per cent. of sick pay to a number of employers but not all. To compensate, national insurance contributions will be reduced.
The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states that the saving in annual public expenditure will be
"about £695 million in 1994–95, rising to £720 million in 1995–96 and £750 million in 1996–97."
Do those figures include or exclude the £100 million cost to Government revenue through the reduction in national insurance contributions? If they are reduced, there will be a loss of revenue. Is that part of the authority that the Minister thinks is required by the money resolution?
The resolution covers "any Act", but the delegated legislation is not on the face of the Bill. We know that the Minister will bring forward delegated legislation because on 1 December, the Secretary of State for Social Security stated:

797
"So far, we have been helping employers whose national insurance bill was £16,000 or less a year. I am raising that limit to £20,000."
That means that the numbers of small firms, as defined by the national insurance contributions, will be widened. The Secretary of State went on to say:
"So far, we have been reimbursing 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay for absences of longer than six weeks. I shall start giving 100 per cent. help after four weeks. That will help an extra 50,000 employers, at a cost of £25 million."—[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
Is that the extent of the delegated powers which the Minister has in mind? He is seeking the authority of the House in the money resolution for any Act, which includes Acts which are carried out by means of the delegated powers which the Minister hopes will be approved by the House. The Bill dealing with statutory sick pay does not provide details of the extension of the reimbursement for small firms which the Minister is to give.
Frankly, we should not allow open-ended money resolutions to pass through the House without raising questions. The extent and the degree to which we give delegated powers to Ministers in Bill after Bill is wrong. It is not unreasonable, and it is directly connected with the money resolution, to ask questions of the Minister before we hand over those powers to him. How will he use the delegated powers which are contained in the Bill as they affect the money resolution?
At the moment, the information that we have from the Secretary of State is that the arrangements which he is to bring in for small firms will cost about £25 million. That presumably is £25 million which has been authorised by the money resolution. Is that the full extent, or is that figure to increase in future years?
Why was not that information included in the financial effects of the Bill? The Bill was printed on 1 December, but the statement by the Secretary of State was on 30 November. If the information given by the Secretary of State has relevance to the financial effects of the Bill, why was not it included? We are dealing with a money section now. Why was not that information included in the explanatory and financial memorandum?
What is the memorandum for? It is designed to help hon. Members in their understanding of the effects of the Bill. As it is always linked to money resolutions, the memorandum enables hon. Members to have some knowledge of the Minister's ideas when presenting the Bill and obtaining the necessary financial authority through the money resolution. I would ask the Minister why the points made by the Secretary of State were not included in the Bill.
These are relevant questions, and I hope that the Minister, who keeps frowning, will give a reasonable explanation to the House. The three hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have raised pertinent questions. I hope that the Minister will not say, as some do, that he thinks that it is clear in the Bill that the money resolution is wanted and that the House can take it or leave it.
We have only 45 minutes and I want to give the Minister time to reply. We have not got much time for the rest of the Bill. The fact is that we are taking the money resolution first because of the desperation of the Government to get the Bill through. Ordinarily, we would be dealing with it later, but the Government are running out
798
of time before the Christmas recess. In those circumstances, it behoves the Minister to give the fullest explanation he can, because there will not be much time when the Bill is debated under the guillotine.
11.28 pm
Mr. Scott: A brave attempt has been made to press the Government on the reasons for this money resolution. I will attempt to cover the points which have been raised during the short debate.
I want to start with the latter point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Under the heading, "Financial effects of the Bill", the Bill makes it absolutely clear that clause 1 will reduce annual public expenditure by the various amounts set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum. It makes it clear that
"The savings will be offset by reduction of employers' national insurance contributions."
The key reason why we need a money resolution for the Bill does not involve the general impact of the Bill upon employers outside Government. It is to provide the Government with the money they will need to fulfil their responsibilities as an employer under the terms of the Bill.
As the House will be aware, clause 1 will amend the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
"so as to abolish the right of employers to recover the 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay paid to employees."
In addition, as I explained earlier, it extends entitlement to SSP to working women who fall sick and become incapable of work after attaining state retirement pension age of 60 until the age of 65. That change is necessary because abolishing reimbursement to SSP turns that into a form of pay rather than a social security benefit. It thus falls outside the scope for the pension age derogation from the equal treatment directive.
The provisions of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill interact. The latter Bill is being introduced at the same time as the SSP provisions to offset the impact of the abolition of the reimbursement of statutory sick pay. It has been made clear that, overall, the impact will be to reduce the burden on business by £100 million more than business is having to expend to meet SSP without any reimbursement at all. In other words, the reduction in national insurance contributions will exceed the extra cost of business by well over £100 million. Business as a whole will not be out of pocket.
I estimate that the impact on the Government of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, which we will be discussing later this week, will be broadly neutral. However, in terms of the narrow effect of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, it is necessary to have this money resolution so that the Government can meet their responsibilities in terms of the SSP element. They will also benefit, in the same way as employers outside will, from the national insurance contributions provisions that will apply outside as well as inside Government.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister answer my point about extending the compensation to small firms? The definition of small firm is to be raised from those paying £16,000 a year in NI contributions to those paying £20,000, and the Secretary of State said that the additional cost of providing 100 per cent. reimbursement after four weeks would be

799
about £25 million. Is that also covered by the money resolution? Will that be the limit? Will it be applied under delegated powers?
Mr. Scott: It is of course included in the package being considered by the House this week and it is included in the sums that I have discussed. We have deliberately tilted the balance of the package to give extra help to smaller companies, particularly those employing people on lower earnings. Therefore, any extra burdens that occur are likely to fall on larger employers with higher paid employees. I believe that, for a variety of reasons, the House would expect us to tilt the balance in that direction.
Again, we are going outside the relevant scope and getting into the merits of the legislation that we will discuss later this week. Today, we are concerned with the narrow point that we need the money provided by the resolution so that Departments, in their role as employers, can meet their obligations. We shall be able to conduct the rest of the arguments about the legislation, albeit under a guillotine, later this week.
Mr. Dewar: I shall confine myself to the narrow point that the Minister raises and make sure that I understand it. Is he saying that it is not a case of additional administrative costs for administering the system, that it refers to the additional expense incurred by the Government as an employer, and that there will be women civil servants between the ages of 60 and 65 working after 60—I do not know how many there will be in the civil service, but let us assume that there are some—who will be entitled to statutory sick pay which previously was not available to them?
Is there also another expense arising from the 80 per cent. change? In a sense, that is a little illogical. After all, the Government were reimbursing the employer. It seems rather odd to have the fiction that the Government were receiving reimbursement as employer from themselves as a Government. That is a circular argument and not a genuine increase in expense. Is it only the other argument that the Minister is founding his case on?
Mr. Scott: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the national insurance fund is contributed to by Departments in their role as employers, in the same way that any other employer has a relationship with the national insurance fund. Departments have the same responsibilities as other employers. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is simply to meet the responsibilities of Departments in their role as employers—not the cost of the number of people administering the scheme, but to cope with the abolition of their right to recover the 80 per cent. and the extra costs of women between 60 and 65.
Mr. Dewar: My intervention will take only a couple of minutes—[Interruption.] Someone has woken up. I ask the Minister to deal with a Northern Ireland point. It is a genuine curiosity on my part. Exactly the same matter arises in Northern Ireland, but I do not know what the authority for the initial expenditure is. There must be a parallel resolution for the money resolution that we are being invited to pass.
Mr. Scott: For a brief period some years ago, I was Minister for Finance in Northern Ireland. I anticipate that, as the exclusion was at the request of the Northern Ireland
800
Department of Health and Social Services, appropriate provision will be made through Order in Council in due course. I could be wrong about that, but, as I recall my experience as Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, it is likely to be the answer.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 78.

Division No. 30]

[11.37 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Fabricant, Michael

Alexander, Richard

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Fishburn, Dudley

Amess, David

Forman, Nigel

Arbuthnot, James

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Ashby, David

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Aspinwall, Jack

French, Douglas

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fry, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Gale, Roger

Baldry, Tony

Gallie, Phil

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Gardiner, Sir George

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Garnier, Edward

Bates, Michael

Gill, Christopher

Batiste, Spencer

Gillan, Cheryl

Beggs, Roy

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bellingham, Henry

Gorst, John

Bendall, Vivian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Grylls, Sir Michael

Booth, Hartley

Hague, William

Boswell, Tim

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Bowis, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brandreth, Gyles

Hannam, Sir John

Brazier, Julian

Hargreaves, Andrew

Bright, Graham

Harris, David

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Haselhurst, Alan

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Hawkins, Nick

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hawksley, Warren

Budgen, Nicholas

Heald, Oliver

Burns, Simon

Hendry, Charles

Burt, Alistair

Hicks, Robert

Butcher, John

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Horam, John

Carrington, Matthew

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cash, William

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Clappison, James

Hunter, Andrew

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Jessel, Toby

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Coe, Sebastian

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Colvin, Michael

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Congdon, David

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Conway, Derek

Key, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Knapman, Roger

Couchman, James

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Cran, James

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

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

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

Day, Stephen

Knox, Sir David

Devlin, Tim

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Dorrell, Stephen

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Dover, Den

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Duncan, Alan

Legg, Barry

Dunn, Bob

Leigh, Edward

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Dykes, Hugh

Lidington, David

Eggar, Tim

Lightbown, David

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Luff, Peter

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Evennett, David

MacKay, Andrew

Faber, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

801

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Madel, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spring, Richard

Malone, Gerald

Sproat, Iain

Mans, Keith

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Marlow, Tony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Steen, Anthony

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stephen, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stern, Michael

Merchant, Piers

Streeter, Gary

Milligan, Stephen

Sumberg, David

Mills, Iain

Sweeney, Walter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sykes, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thomason, Roy

Nicholls, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

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

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tredinnick, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trend, Michael

Paice, James

Trotter, Neville

Pickles, Eric

Twinn, Dr Ian

Porter, David (Waveney)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Viggers, Peter

Powell, William (Corby)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Richards, Rod

Waller, Gary

Riddick, Graham

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Waterson, Nigel

Robathan, Andrew

Watts, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wells, Bowen

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Whitney, Ray

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Whittingdale, John

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Widdecombe, Ann

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Willetts, David

Sackville, Tom

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wood, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Yeo, Tim

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Sims, Roger

Tellers for the Ayes:

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Soames, Nicholas

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Spencer, Sir Derek

NOES

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Donohoe, Brian H.

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Dowd, Jim

Bermingham, Gerald

Enright, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Etherington, Bill

Bradley, Keith

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Cann, Jamie

Foulkes, George

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Fyfe, Maria

Clelland, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Coffey, Ann

Hall, Mike

Connarty, Michael

Hanson, David

Cryer, Bob

Hinchliffe, David

Davidson, Ian

Home Robertson, John

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

Hood, Jimmy

Dewar, Donald

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Dixon, Don

Hoyle, Doug

802

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Miller, Andrew

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Morgan, Rhodri

Illsley, Eric

Morley, Elliot

Ingram, Adam

Mudie, George

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Pickthall, Colin

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Pike, Peter L.

Kilfoyle, Peter

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Kirkwood, Archy

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Litherland, Robert

Primarolo, Dawn

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Purchase, Ken

Lynne, Ms Liz

Rendel, David

McCartney, Ian

Short, Clare

McKelvey, William

Skinner, Dennis

Maclennan, Robert

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

McMaster, Gordon

Spearing, Nigel

McNamara, Kevin

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Turner, Dennis

Mahon, Alice

Tyler, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wallace, James

Martlew, Eric

Watson, Mike

Maxton, John

Meale, Alan

Tellers for the Noes:

Michael, Alun

Mr. Terry Lewis and

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in consequence of the Act by a Minister of the Crown.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill [Money]

  ENVIRONMENT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Kevin Barron and Mr. Nick Raynsford be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. John Denham be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  HOME AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Mike O'Brien be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen Byers be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Bryan Davies be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Bruce Grocott be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Adam Ingram be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Ken Purchase be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Garrett be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Mr. Mike O'Brien be added to the Committee.—Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Policing (Derbyshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
11.48 pm
Mrs. Angela Knight: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the matter of policing in Derbyshire, which is of great importance to my constituents and to the residents of the county. I thank the Minister for being here to reply, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) for being here to support me.
The Derbyshire police force is in a uniquely difficult position. For the second year in succession it has not been granted its certificate of efficiency, and it is essential now that there is a positive future for the force, for its sake and particularly for the residents of the county. The policemen and policewomen of Derbyshire are doing an excellent job fighting crime in the county, but the force has suffered for many years from a lack of adequate funding by Derbyshire county council.
The sequence of events that has resulted in the police force losing its certificate has been documented in a series of reports by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. In his report of the 1990 inspection of the Derbyshire force the inspector stated:
"The County Council's corporate strategy does not permit any realistic growth in police spending in real terms and this has meant a virtual standstill in developing the Constabulary and its resources for the last 8 years … the consequences of Derbyshire … are evident."
Those were his exact words. He went on to say:
"The bureaucratic requirements of the County Council and the Police Committee are a major obstacle to the efficient management of the Force."
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Stop reading.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) wishes to intervene and ask the hon. Lady to give way, that is one thing; otherwise, I should be grateful if he would keep his thoughts to himself.
Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to read his or her speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The use of copious notes is quite acceptable, particularly on the Adjournment motion.
Mrs. Knight: The report concluded that the constabulary was
"in several significant respects, on the brink of inefficiency."
It stated:
"unless immediate and positive action is put in hand to improve the position, there must be a real risk of the Derbyshire Constabulary being adjudged inefficient".
Those were the words of the inspector in 1990. He then made a series of recommendations. The police force addressed these recommendations with considerable success, but the police authority dragged its feet: it refused to allow the chief constable greater freedom to manage the force—something that had been allowed in other forces for many years.
In the summer of the following year, 1991, a further inspection was made——
Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order.
Mr. Hoyle: Yes, it is Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the difference between using copious notes and reading a speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not this evening. Mrs. Knight.
Mrs. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject is important—for Derbyshire and for other places in the country.
In 1991 the inspector found a shortfall of police on duty on the streets. He also found a low level of morale and a high rate of sickness. Despite—[Interruption.]
Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you bring to order those Conservative Members who are asking me to leave the Chamber because I am bringing to your attention the conduct of an hon. Member. I shall ask you to name the hon. Member if that hon. Member continues to point to me. Is it right for an hon. Member to ask another hon. Member to leave the chamber?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is only one hon. Member who can do that—me, as the occupant of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen to the debate, he should do so, and the same applies to the Conservative Members sitting behind the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight).
Mrs. Knight: In January 1992, the inspector returned to Derbyshire. Despite all the previous warnings that he had given, he found that the force was considerably under strength—by 125 officers. He found that in that year there were fewer officers than there had been in 1981. The ratio of police per head of population in Derbyshire was considerably worse than the national average. Crime was rising, the police force was doing a good job despite its difficulties, but its resources were scant because of the many years it had been kept short of funds by Derbyshire county council.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Knight: I will not give way.
The inspector spoke to the chairman of the police authority. He learned that the Derbyshire constabulary had not even been allowed to submit a budget to the police authority for consideration. After considerable persuasion, the Labour chairman of the police authority told the chief constable that he would allow him to submit a budget that year but that he was not prepared to support a budget that was set at the standard spending assessment, despite an earlier request by the county council to the Department of the Environment to increase the SSA for policing purposes. The chief constable bid for £76 million. The county council reduced the amount. The police force did not get its certificate of efficiency.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Knight: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman could have asked for this Adjournment debate. He could have asked me before if he wished to intervene. More importantly, he could have asked his Labour colleagues on the county council to ensure that the police force did not get into its present difficulties.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the nature of this debate about Derbyshire, and the fact that I am a Derbyshire Member of Parliament, is it in order for an hon. Member to acknowledge that when the Derbyshire county council asked for an extra 112 police officers the Government refused?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.
Mrs. Knight: In all his reports, the inspector has rightly and properly excluded the police officers and their civilian colleagues from criticism. Instead, he declared that they were working far beyond the level that might reasonably be expected in the circumstances. It was not their fault; the fault clearly lay at the door of the county council.
Despite the difficulties, the force has had many successes. There are many things to the credit of the police officers. There is dedication to duty in all ranks of the service; the force was early into civilianisation so that more police officers could be used on policing duties; there are child protection units; the special constabulary is fully part of the force; there are crime prevention panels; and the force has good relations with the community and with schools. Those are excellent things that the force has done. I have the highest praise for those with whom I have contact—the present superintendent and the previous one, the chief inspectors and inspectors, and other policemen and policewomen and civilians of the Erewash division.
In 1992, the inspector set the Derbyshire police force six targets: to fill police and civilian vacancies and recruit up to its establishment by April this year; to resume promotions and train staff; to provide for police overtime to the metropolitan average; to undertake essential repairs; to improve the vehicle fleet; and to resource the scientific support for the force in Derbyshire. Many gains and improvements have been made. Efforts have been made at all levels.
The budget situation has improved, giving the police forces its first real growth for nearly 10 years. The Home Office has treated the force sympathetically with regard to capital. The establishment is now for 1,850 officers, but it is not yet up to that strength. Last winter, the chief constable said that he required £86 million in 1993 to maintain the momentum. The police authority only recommended slightly under £84 million. The county council reduced the figure to £80.2 million. That is why the force is still under strength. No wonder the force has its difficulties—it was £6 million short of its required budget. The six targets have not yet been fully reached and the certificate of efficiency was not granted again last month.
Not surprisingly, many members of the force feel that the community is judging them harshly—that they are not efficient. Although the inspector has praised the members of the force on many occasions for their dedication—and rightly so—questions are being asked and criticisms are being made about a situation which has allowed police officers to operate in those circumstances and which has allowed a deterioration in the quality of the service to the public. All too often, the needs of the Derbyshire police force and the Derbyshire public are not being met.
The chief constable responded to this year's report in a document entitled "Policing in Derbyshire—Meeting the Challenge". There is a challenge that must be met. The police service in Derbyshire and the residents need to know about their future.
806
Shortly after my election to the House, I spoke about the benefits of establishing a police authority separate from the county council. I look forward to the day when that happens in Derbyshire. I know that such a change will be in the Bill when it comes before Parliament. I hope that any parts of the Bill that it will be possible to anticipate early will be anticipated for the benefit of Derbyshire. The force is below strength, but it is starting to recruit again and the noble Lord Ferrers said on 16 November that he was hoping that it would be able to recruit to within 2 per cent. of its establishment.
Requests to increase the establishment of the police force have, surprisingly, not been made in every year over the past few years. This year, however, such a request was supported by the police authority. It would have had the advantage of increasing the police element of the SSA. When a force is under its existing establishment level, however, it is not altogether surprising if the establishment number is not increased. Yet Derbyshire police force finds itself in a unique situation, and one that is not of its own making. It is a special case, and it will be an advantage to all of us in the county if the numbers of policemen and policewomen are increased. Increasing the establishment numbers is one way, but accelerating civilianisation is another.
If the proposals that the chief constable recently made to the police authority are approved, that could result in a further 80 policemen and policewomen being released for policing duties next year. However, such a move requires the county council to approve a budget of £88 million, and there are real concerns that the budget will not be approved at that level. I ask the Home Office to do all that it can to ensure that that prudent proposal by the chief constable proceeds.
Additional capital approvals were made by the Home Office as recently as last month. If that were repeated again, it would also relieve some revenue cash for more policing. Looking to the county council has become an increasingly fruitless exercise. As a consequence, the residents of Derbyshire are looking to the Home Office to see what it can do to help to ensure that the police force gets the resources that it needs. The proposed changes to police funding, including cash-limited budgets, will make next year's budget particularly important. I trust that the Home Office formula for allocating budgets will take account of, and cater for, forces such as Derbyshire that have been continually under-resourced.
It is a fine police force, but that police force and 1 million residents have been neglected by the county council. Policemen and policewomen have been left to do a difficult job in increasingly impossible circumstances. The Derbyshire police force needs to see a future that is clear of the political controls that have bedeviled it. That will allow it to give the county the policing that it wants to give, and that the residents of the county deserve and have every right to expect.
12.2 am
Mr. Charles Hendry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on the way in which she introduced the debate. In my constituency, as in hers and those of my other colleagues who represent Derbyshire constituencies, the fight against

807
crime is the top priority. Our constituents would therefore welcome the powerful way in which she spoke. I endorse what she said.
The removal of the certificate of efficiency for a second year is no reflection on the work of the police. They do a tremendous job for all our constituents, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude. A few weeks ago, I spent the night with the police in Glossop—not, I hasten to add, in one of their cells, but going out with them on patrol. I found a force acting as we would wish our police to work. The policemen and policewomen were courteous, efficient, hard working and dedicated. Over these difficult years, they have put in many hours of overtime, very often unpaid. They have worked long hours in difficult circumstances because they have wanted to put first the safety of the people of Derbyshire.
The problems that we face in Derbyshire in our policing go back, as my hon. Friend said, for some years. She has pointed out clearly how, over the past year, £86 million was requested, and £83 million was then endorsed by the police authority but the county council allocated only £80 million.
It was the county council that left our police force £6 million short. It was the county council, through the hostility that it expressed in previous years from the top towards the police, which led people not to apply to that police force.
Nothing shows as starkly the situation that the police in Derbyshire face as the figures produced last week on staffing levels in local authorities. They reveal that there has been some improvement in the past year in the number of those employed by our police force. They show that, of the 31 county councils, Derbyshire is fourth in terms of the increase in the number of its full-time employees. They also show that we lie fifth in terms of the increase in the number of part-time employees.
The starkest contrast is that provided by the comparison between the number of police in Derbyshire and the number of county council employees. Derbyshire police is thirteenth in the list of employers, whereas Derbyshire county council is eighth. The police force is the tenth largest employer of part-time employees, whereas the county council is the fourth largest employer of such workers in the country.
Those figures show that, over the years, the county council has systematically chosen to stuff county hall with bureaucrats and its friends. It has even employed the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who had previously been sacked by it. Such is the way in which the council has sought to look after its own political interests at the expense of policing in Derbyshire. That is the crime that has been committed for many years in Derbyshire and our constituents have suffered.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) also wishes to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. In the local newspaper, the Buxton Advertiser, Councillor Eric Swain challenged me to answer the charge, "Who is to blame?" for the policing in Derbyshire. The answer is the county council, which has chosen to back other priorities than the police. That policy has undermined our police. I hope that that is clear enough for Councillor Swain to understand, because he and his colleagues chose those priorities.
808
In a couple of years, when the chief constable is able to decide how he spends the resources and on the appropriate staffing levels—a welcome change—that wretched, dreadful, miserable county council will have been abolished. On behalf of my constituents, I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is an Adjournment debate a debate, or is it merely a presentation of one particular point of view, without any opportunity for the normal cross debate that occurs in the——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Barnes: Opposition Members would then be able to express an opinion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the point of order. The hon. Gentleman has attended many Adjournment debates and he knows full well that, whichever hon. Member is successful in the ballot, it is for that person to choose the nature of the debate and to decide who may or may not take part in it.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) referred to me, would it be in order for me to have a chance to speak, because with three Tories in a row making speeches, and a Tory Minister present to reply, the debate is rigged?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need to repeat that it is for the hon. Member for Erewash, who was lucky in the ballot, to decide who may participate in the debate.
12.8 am
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on winning her place in the ballot and on the clear way in which she presented her case. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on the points that he raised.
It was on 22 January 1991, almost three years ago, that I raised the same issue on the Adjournment. Since then, huge efforts have been made in Derbyshire. I should like to pay particular tribute to the police officers and the civilians who work in the force who have made valiant efforts to meet the strictures that were sensibly imposed by the inspector of constabulary, Mr. Dear.
Considerable success and changes have been achieved, especially on recruitment, training and re-equipping. There have also been some changes in attitudes. Everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said was true, but I detect a shift in attitudes, particularly since Mr. Bookbinder, the former leader of the council, has left politics altogether and since the recent gaoling of the deputy leader of the county council, Mr. Shaun Stafford. Once the senior people go, attitudes change.
In my view—in this I may differ a little from my hon. Friends—the refusal to grant the efficiency certificate this time may be failing to take some of the changes into account. The decision runs the danger of being damaging. A continual refusal to grant the certificate becomes part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
My hon. Friends are right in saying that, if Derbyshire police are to return to full efficiency, they must have more officers. Mr. Dear said that himself. But the force cannot

809
even recruit up to its establishment because it is at the upper level of its budget and the budget, at £80.2 million, is exactly, according to the Home Office's standard spending assessment, what it ought to be. We are stuck. The Home Office's own inspector is now more critical of the Home Office than of Derbyshire police.
I ask Home Office Ministers and the Treasury to take the matter seriously—rather more seriously, perhaps, than some Labour Members here tonight. I simply do not believe that a solution is beyond the grasp of our Government. We look forward to the changes in the pattern of police financing and management which are promised to us in the police Bill, but those measures are not likely to come into effect for some 18 months. Meanwhile, we must have more police officers in Derbyshire. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to take the matter seriously and do something about it.
12.11 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on her excellent speech and on her stalwart support for the cause of policing in Derbyshire, in which she has been joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and my ministerial colleagues my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).
We have heard some eloquent praise of the good work done by Derbyshire police. I join in that praise. The basic problems that Derbyshire police have faced are not the result of a failure on the part of the police. In many ways, and in different circumstances, the Derbyshire police have coped and are coping extremely well. The report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary makes that clear. It has also been made clear by the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on various occasions.
I also agree with my hon. Friends that Derbyshire's problems are not caused by standard spending assessments.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wardle: No; I want to make some progress.
The council has done its best to hide behind the SSAs. As the council well knows, and as the House well knows, SSAs are merely a guide. The council seems to be content to budget to spend well above its SSAs on just about every other major council service except the police. SSAs cannot take account each year of past adverse spending choices by the county council.
On a previous occasion, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke about SSA,s. In a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South, he said:
"Should not the Government ensure that the SSAs for many items, but particularly those relating to the police are increased?"—[Official Report, 11 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 880.]
The hard fact is that Derbyshire county council has underspent its SSAs year after year. In 1991 it underspent by 15.8 per cent. The next year it fell short by 17.2 per cent. The year after that it budgeted below its SSA by 4.3 per cent. and in the current year it has done so by 2.6 per cent. There we have the nub of the problem.
810
What has made things worse has been a cumbersome and unnecessary system——
Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wardle: No; I would like to make some progress. A cumbersome and unnecessary system of bureaucratic council control has sapped morale year after year. The Labour Members present tonight seek to cover that up by their interventions and some of the points that they have made. It has prevented police force managers from doing the job that has been required. It is true that during the past couple of years there have been some relaxations, but unnecessary controls remain in place even today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash was also right to point out that Derbyshire's problems are clearly not a result of ungenerous treatment. This year, for example, an extra £4.5 million capital allocation has been made available to it. When Derbyshire has made no bid for any increase in the complement of police officers—as was the case in five of the past 11 years—we cannot help. As my hon. Friends and the House will know, under the present system, a bid for more money has to be expressed in terms of additional police posts. Yet, during the periods 1984–87 and 1988–90, Derbyshire made no bid for additional posts whatsoever.
Mr. Skinner: It did—112.
Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has reminded us, this year Derbyshire belatedly made a bid. He will also be aware that this year, in the climate of sensible financial constraint, there have been no other bids for additional police. The existing problem is simply the result of a failure to bid for additional police posts. If Derbyshire had kept up with the national average of all police forces, excluding the Metropolitan police, it would have had an additional 51 posts, with the additional funding that that implies.
Mr. Barnes: If there is a problem and there are insufficient police officers in Derbyshire, why has the present request not been responded to? Why do not all hon. Members who represent Derbyshire—including Conservative Members—agree to see the Minister as part of a joint delegation to discuss funding, irrespective of their attitude to how the problem has arisen and whether it lies with the Government or the county council? Hon. Members will have different views on how the problem has arisen, but, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, we have a chance to resolve it. Why can we not have a joint deputation to discuss that?
Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman persistently ducks the fact that in past years Derbyshire has underspent its SSA for police and has overspent in other areas. For example, last year it overspent on personal social services by 21 per cent., while underspending on the police in spite of the fact that the problem was clear for everyone in the House and in Derbyshire to see. It is no use the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) trying to cover up for mistakes that are all too obvious.
I shall seek to write to my hon. Friend with details of the programme that will remedy the situation in which Derbyshire still finds itself. I know that she will bear in mind that the reforms that are to be introduced in the police Bill, which will begin in another place in the new year, will greatly ease the position of the chief constable of

811
Derbyshire, and all chief constables, because they will be able to allocate their resources as they see fit between officers and equipment and will be able to meet the requirements of Her Majesty's inspectorate.
812
I shall also write to my hon. Friend about the steps that my right hon. and noble Friend has agreed with Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary and the chief constable of Derbyshire—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Surveillance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if citizens making their houses available to the police for surveillance are individually identified in court.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Where there is a prosecution in a case in which individuals have assisted the police by

  Passengers refused leave to enter, and removed from, selected ports

  Number of persons

  Dover West

  Dover East

  Folkestone

  Ramsgate

  Newhaven

  1993

  May

  21

  284

  2

  9

  15

  June

  18

  295

  1

  7

  2

  July

  41

  367

  2

  13

  15

  August

  33

  338

  1

  7

  12

  September

  34

  333

  5

  5

  34

  October

  13

  332

  5

  3

  14

  November

  4

  n/a

  4

  n/a

  7

  n/a=not yet available.

  Prisoner Discharges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the money allowance-grant that is given to a prison inmate who is discharged from a prison in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 13 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the grant paid to prisoners discharged from prisons in England and Wales.
  Most prisoners serving sentences over 14 days are eligible for a discharge grant. Exceptions include those with substantial resources or discharged to hospital. The rate of the grant generally corresponds to one week's Income Support and is currently £44·00 (age 25 and over) or £34·55 (age 18 to 24). Prisoners who need accommodation arranged for them on release are eligible for a higher rate, currently £90·05.
  Prisoners (except deportees) not eligible for a discharge grant receive payment of fares and a subsistence allowance to cover their journey to a destination in the British Isles.

  Deportations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been deported, so far, in 1993; and how many people were deported from the United Kingdom in(a) 1991 and (b)
  432
  making their houses available for the purpose of surveillance it is open to the prosecution to apply to the court before trial for a ruling that this fact should not be disclosed to the defence. The court's duty is then to balance the public interest of non-disclosure against the interest of securing fairness to the defendant. If the court decides against disclosure the identity of the house occupier would not then be revealed in court. If an order for disclosure is made it is open to the prosecution to abandon the case.

  Leave to Enter
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people arriving on a cross-channel ferry have been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and removed each month since May at(a) Dover western docks, (b) Dover eastern docks, (c) Folkestone, (d) Ramsgate and (e) Newhaven.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process was 2,220 in 1991, 2,453 in 1992, and 1,654—provisional figure—for January to September 1993.

  Requirement to Leave
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of EC countries were made subject to a requirement to leave the United Kingdom for(a) each of the three years preceding 1993 and (b) for each month since May 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information available is given in
  the table.

  EC nationals1 require to leave the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Passengers refused leave to enter and removed

  Illegal entrants removed2

  Persons removed under the deportation process2

  1990

  145

  8

  59

  1991

  88

  7

  51

  1992

  229

  3

  76

  1993

  January to March

  49

  3

  30

  April

  10

  1

  18

  May

  23

  June

  12

  July

  17

  ..

  11

  August

  28

  September

  19

  433
  .. not yet available.

  1 Including persons who claimed to be EC nationals.

  2 Including persons who departed voluntarily.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average life sentence served by(a) men and (b) women who were sentenced to life imprisonment since 1970.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 13 December 1993:
  AVERAGE TIME SERVED BY LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS SENTENCED SINCE 1970
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average time served by (a) men and (b) women sentenced to life imprisonment since 1970.
  The available information is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (Tables 8.4 and 8.5 of the latest volume, for 1991, Cm. 2157), a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. Information for men and women released in 1992 was given in response to a question from Mrs. Mahon MP (Vol. 229, Col. 856, Written Answers on 27 July 1993) and I attach a copy of the reply for ease of reference.

  Shotguns
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing the major occupation of shotgun certificate holders.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available centrally.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms, by category, are registered as being in private ownership.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The estimated number of firearms which were held on a firearm certificate in England and Wales on 31 December 1992 is 358,000. Information as to the categories of firearms held on certificate is not available centrally.

  Baroness Thatcher
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police authorities which have asked publisher Harper Collins for a contribution to the cost of policing visits made by Baroness Thatcher to promote her memoirs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not held centrally.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list any sites being considered for new prisons in south Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  434
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 13 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the sites being considered for new prisons in South Wales.
  Long term projections of prison population indicate that 800 additional prisoner places will be required in South Wales by the end of the decade. A new prison is needed, therefore, which will provide relief for Cardiff and Swansea prisons and reduce the need to send many prisoners from this area to other prisons, sometimes as far as Dartmoor and The Verne in Dorset. The Prison Service recognises that it should, wherever possible, hold prisoners close to their homes. A new prison in South Wales is vital to this key long-term objective.
  A search was undertaken to find a suitable site for a new prison in South Wales. In addition to being of an adequate size and shape, together with suitable ground conditions for substantial buildings, it had to be well located in terms of the distribution of population, access to the major road and motorway system in South Wales and public transport. The Parc Hospital site at Bridgend was identified as an ideal location and will be available for use later next year. The purchase of the site is being negotiated and a planning notice for the proposed prison has been served in compliance with Welsh Office Circular 37/84. This is now being considered by the local planning authority, Ogwr Borough Council.

  Prisoners (Benefits)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions are made for prisoners to apply for social security benefits before release, to enable any such benefits to be received immediately upon release; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 13 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what provisions are made for prisoners to apply for social security benefits before release.
  Governors are encouraged to ensure that, whenever possible, prisoners are given the opportunity prior to discharge to seek advice about their entitlement to social security benefits on release. There are no arrangements for prisoners to make a claim while still in custody. Prisoners are advised to visit their local benefits office as soon as possible after release. They are provided with a form to introduce them to the Department of Social Security. Many qualify for a discharge grant, which provides financial assistance until they are able to lodge a claim.
  Guidance on benefits is given in the Prisoners Information Pack, which is available to all prisoners. The Prison Service are currently considering with the Benefits Agency whether the arrangements for providing advice to prisoners on benefits to which they may properly be entitled on release can be improved.

  Murder
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of individuals convicted for murder since the abolition of the death sentence who, on release, have committed murder again.

  Mr. Maclean
  From the information to date seven individuals convicted of murder in England and Wales
  435
  since the abolition of the death penalty had been convicted again of murder in England and Wales following release as follows:

  Case

  Date of first murder

  Date of second murder

  First

  1969

  1986

  Second

  1971

  1990

  Third

  1972

  1988

  Fourth

  1972

  1992

  Fifth

  1974

  1985

  Sixth

  1979

  1989

  Seventh

  1980

  1992

  In addition, a further case involved a murder in England in 1972, with a subsequent murder taking place in Scotland in 1983. One person convicted of a murder which took place in 1981 in Northern Ireland was subsequently convicted of a second murder in England which took place in 1992.

  Inquests (Multiple Deaths)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances a coroner may adjourn an inquest into multiple deaths without reconvening its sitting to complete his investigations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under section 16(1) of the Coroners Act 1988, if a coroner is informed that a person has been charged with the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of the deceased, or with an offence directly involving or alleged to have been committed in circumstances connected with the death of the deceased, he must, in the absence of reason to the contrary, adjourn the inquest until after the conclusion of the relevant criminal proceedings. Under section 16(3) of the Act, the coroner may resume the adjourned inquest after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings if, in his opinion, there is sufficient cause to do so.

  Electoral Boundaries
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to respond to the final suggestions for boundaries made by the European Parliamentary Committee for Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend will pay prompt attention to the report of the Committee when he receives it. I understand that that is likely to be later this month.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each police authority in England and Wales,(a) the increase in authorised police establishment requested and (b) the increase granted by him in each of the past five years, in both cases making it clear whether supernumeraries are included or excluded from each figure.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  National Public Alert System
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a national public alert system.
  436
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It was announced on 12 November 1992 that the obsolescent national siren warning system was to be closed down and that future national arrangements for warning the public would use radio and television broadcasts. Work is in hand on the new system.

  Re-entry Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy on issuing re-entry visas to those settled in the United Kingdom and who intend to return within short periods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Re-entry visas were abolished in May 1991. Those settled in the United Kingdom are however exempt from the requirement to obtain a visa if they return to the United Kingdom for settlement within two years of departure.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Union
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the admission of states in the Visegrad group into the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Copenhagen European Council agreed in June that the Central European associate countries—including the four states in the Visegrad group —should be admitted to the European Union, if they so wished, as soon as they are ready to take on the obligations of membership. The Government had worked hard to achieve this outcome, and warmly welcomed it.

  The associate countries are now beginning to prepare themselves, economically and politically. The United Kingdom is helping this process both bilaterally and through the European Union.

  Honours System
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his proposals for the honours system announced on 4 March.

  The Prime Minister
  The changes to the honours system outlined in my statement to the House on 4 March have been put into effect. I plan to report to the House shortly on the review of the numbers and distribution of honours.

  Northern Ireland (Investment)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the companies from other EC countries which have brought inward investment into Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the last 10 years.

  The Prime Minister
  According to records maintained by the Department of Trade and Industry's Invest in Britain Bureau, 879 EC-owned companies have set up in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years. These figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department, and so the figures include only those projects where the Invest in Britain
  437
  Bureau and its regional partners were involved, or which have come to their notice. They take no account of subsequent developments.

  At the request of the companies concerned, some names are commercially confidential, and cannot be quoted. However, a list of quotable companies has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what will be the cash limit on the cost of running his office in 1994–95.

  The Prime Minister
  Financial provision for the running of my Office in 1994–95 is subject to the budgetary planning arrangements operated jointly by the Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service and Science. Internal allocation of the 1993 survey settlement is not yet complete. Provision is expected to be similar to that for the current financial year.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what information ministerial special advisers who resign or retire are required to provide concerning their subsequent employment; and to whom.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  NATO
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the admission of states in the Visegrad group into membership of NATO; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We and our NATO allies have repeatedly stated that NATO is not a closed shop. We do not therefore rule out the possibility of new members at some time in the future. But the question of NATO enlargement is a complex one. Our overriding objective in considering it must be to enhance security and stability across the whole of Europe, while at the same time ensuring that we do not create new divisions or erect new barriers.

  Morality
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister which of Her Majesty's Government's policies since 1979 have attempted to influence moral behaviour; and what assessment he has made of each of those policies.

  The Prime Minister
  Policies are designed to influence moral behaviour where it is in the national interest that they should do so. Our policies on law and order are perhaps the most obvious example.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much has been spent on decorating and furnishing No. 10 Downing street since November 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: Figures are available only on a financial year basis. The expenditure on new works, furniture and fittings in the state rooms, on the catering facilities, and in the offices and other rooms in 10 Downing street from April 1991 to March 1993 was £292,000.

EDUCATION

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 31, what information his Department has on the place of residence of pupils under the assisted places scheme at the time of their original application for an assisted place; what steps his Department takes to ensure that applicants for assisted places are genuinely entitled to a place under the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the place of residence of pupils at the time of their application for an assisted place is not held by the Department. It is for participating schools themselves to select pupils for assisted places, but the Department ensures that they target able children from families with low incomes, and also that a substantial majority of assisted pupils in any school have previously attended a maintained school.

  To ensure that participating schools carry out assessments of income correctly, the Department also issues regular comprehensive guidance and carries out random audit surveys of income assessments. These surveys, together with the statistical information collected, show that schools are indeed administering the scheme properly and targeting the pupils for whom the scheme is intended.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 31, what was the total cost to public funds of the assisted places scheme at Wolverhampton grammar school in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested for the past five years is given in the table. Data for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Academic year

  DFE expenditure £000s

  1988–89

  485

  1989–90

  507

  1990–91

  600

  1991–92

  702

  1992–93

  1760

  1 Estimate pending final claim.

  School Inspectors
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list by local education authority area(a) the number of Office for Standards in Education formal inspections and (b) the number of unannounced visits carried out so far.

  (2) if he will list by local education authority area the number of formal inspections planned till the end of 1994.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The arrangements for inspecting schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 are a matter for Ofsted.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Forth
  In the financial year 1990–91, the Government car service for Ministers cost the Department £134,191·00, including value added tax, for five vehicles. There will in addition have been a cost to the Department in transporting ministerial boxes and other papers to Ministers; it is unfortunately not possible to disaggregate this figure from other costs.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hostel spaces for the homeless in Doncaster have been supported by his Department in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c) 1992–93 and (d) the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Government provide resources, through the programmes of the Housing Corporation, for capital and revenue funding towards housing associations schemes for people with special needs. The information which follows gives the number of bed-spaces in such schemes in the metropolitan borough of Doncaster which have received revenue funding for that year and the amount of capital funding which has contributed to the addition of new bed-spaces in that year.

  Bed-spaces

  Revenue funding £

  Capital funding £

  1990–91

  37

  92,000

  206,000

  1991–92

  43

  137,000

  128,000

  1992–93

  54

  144,000

  382,000

  1993–94

  58

  158,000

  116,000

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of hostel accommodation beds available for elderly homeless people at risk in central London in November 1991, November 1992 and November 1993.

  Sir George Young
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what discussions he has held regarding provision to replace the beds for the homeless lost in Central London on the closure of the Salvation Army hostel in Great Peter street.

  Sir George Young
  The responsibility for the funding of new provision through housing associations is vested in the Housing Corporation, which I understand has had discussions with the Salvation Army about the future of the Great Peter street site. More generally, under the Government's rough sleepers initiative, the Housing Corporation is planning to provide funding for about 1,500 new bedspaces in Central London over a three-year period beginning this year.

  Ministers (Foreign Visits)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the Ministers in his Department who since June 1987 have visited(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malaysia, (c) Singapore and (d) South Africa on official business; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department's central records, which only go back to 1 April 1990, show that the only such visits were by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to Malaysia and Lord Strathclyde to South Africa.

  As far as I am aware these visits included no party political activities. The visit to Malaysia was to attend a meeting with developing countries prior to the UNCED summit in Rio de Janeiro, whilst Lord Strathclyde's visit to South Africa was to promote export opportunities for the United Kingdom water industry.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the workshop on national plans for sustainable development held by the Development Assistance and Environmental Policies Committees of the OECD in Ottawa in October.

  Mr. Yeo
  The workshop was attended by representatives of OECD and other Governments, including officials from my Department and the Overseas Development Administration, and by non-governmental organisations (notably the UK-based International Institute for Environment and Development and the Overseas Development Institute) and by international agencies.

  It was not a decision-taking forum. It compared the experience of different OECD countries (a) in preparing sustainable development strategies to follow up the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and (b) in giving assistance with such plans to developing nations. The general view was that countries were likely to produce a variety of types of strategies and plans dealing with sustainable development, economic development, and environment and conservation policies, reflecting their different circumstances; the OECD however could try to assist international discussions, for example in the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, by drawing up its own guidelines on the common features that it might expect to find in strategies or plans that were intended as contributions to sustainable development. Another conclusion was that governments must integrate their policies for economic development and environmental protection.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for monitoring the implementation of the voluntary plan which he has asked the packaging industry to draw up to recover between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of packaging waste; what action he proposes to take in the event of the packaging industry failing to meet the targets drawn up by him; and if he will introduce legal targets for the avoidance, minimisation and recycling of packaging waste and measures to boost markets for recycling products.
  441
  Mr. Yeo
  We believe that a voluntary approach, such as the producer responsibility initiative for packaging waste, will enable industry to devise the most cost effective and flexible methods for securing the Government's objectives for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste and for the reduction at source of packaging. Under producer responsibility we have asked industry to present by Christmas a phased plan to achieve our targets and we will examine their proposals very closely to satisfy ourselves that they are feasible. However, we have also made it clear to industry that if they are not able to satisfy us that they will succeed on a voluntary basis we will consider legislation.

  Air Sampling
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the locations of the air sampling station used for official purposes in Greater London; and what assessment he has made as to the adequacy of the range of samples for the safeguarding of the public.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are advised on their monitoring strategy by the Department of the Environment's independent export review groups: the quality of urban air review group; the photochemical oxidants review group; and the review group on acid rain. Advice concerning potential health effects is provided by Department of Health independent export groups, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes.

  The location of the Department of the Environment's automatic and non-automatic air quality monitoring sites in Greater London are given in the tables.

  Site type

  Location

  Automatic

  Enhanced urban site

  Camden (Bloomsbury)

  Hydrocarbon site

  Camden (University College)

  Hydrocarbon site

  Greenwich (Eltham)

  NOx, O3, CO, SO2

  Westminster (Bridge Place, Victoria)

  NOx, CO

  Kensington and Chelsea (Earls Court)

  NOx, CO, SO2

  Kensington and Chelsea (Cromwell Road)

  Non-automatic

  Smoke and sulphur

  Croydon

  Dioxide1

  Ealing (2)

  Enfield

  Greenwich (2)

  Hackney

  Harrow

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lambeth

  London (City)

  Redbridge

  Tower Hamlets

  Westminster

  442

  Site type

  Location

  Nitrogen dioxide1

  Barking

  (4 diffusion tubes in each borough)

  Barnet

  Brent

  Bromley

  Camden

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lambeth

  London (City)

  Southwark

  Waltham Forest

  Westminster

  Toxic organic micropollutants

  Marsham Street, Victoria, Westminster

  Multi-element and lead

  Neasden, Brent

  Cromwell Road, Kensington and Chelsea

  Bridge Place, Victoria, Westminster

  1Monitoring undertaken in collaboration with local authorities.

  Bathing Water
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the quality of sea water off the beaches in and adjacent to the Castle Point constituency meets the European Community directive on bathing water standards.

  Mr. Yeo
  The results of water quality monitoring in the 1993 season for bathing waters in the area are shown in the Department's press release No. 818 copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the results of the study into the effects on health of sea water bathing around the British coastline which was conducted by pilot study in collaboration with the University of Wales water research centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  A report on the pilot study was published on 19 June 1990 and placed in the Library.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the results of the sea water bathing health study which took place at Southend on Sea on 4 July 1992; and what implications can be drawn from that study on the advisability of sea water bathing in and around the Castle Point constituency.

  Mr. Yeo
  The study at Southend in 1992 forms part of the four-year programme of research at a number of locations on which the final report will be published shortly.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is safe to bathe from beaches serving the coastline in and adjacent to the Castle Point constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Safety will depend on a large number of factors including wind, wave and tidal conditions and the competence of the bather. Methods of risk assessment are described in "Safety on British Beaches" published by
  443
  RoSPA and RLSS UK. The advice from the Department of Health is that there is minimal risk of serious disease from swimming in British coastal waters.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of people employed, (b) the total number of black people and (c) the total number of Asians.

  Mr. Gummer
  The total numbers, and the numbers of black and Asian staff1 at each grade level are as follows:

  Total in grade

  Black

  Asians(excluding Chinese)

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  7

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  34

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  7

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  144

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  309

  1

  0

  per cent.

  0·3

  Grade 7

  776

  8

  2

  per cent.

  1·0

  0·3

  SEO and equivalent

  740

  3

  12

  per cent.

  0·4

  1·6

  HEO and equivalent

  981

  18

  24

  per cent.

  1·8

  2·4

  EO and equivalent

  1,224

  28

  42

  per cent.

  2·3

  3·4

  AO and equivalent

  1,601

  131

  76

  per cent.

  8·2

  4·7

  AA and equivalent

  790

  65

  36

  per cent.

  8·2

  4·6

  Total

  6,614

  254

  192

  per cent

  3·8

  2·9

  1Figures are for permanent full time and part-time non-industrial staff, including those in agencies based on those who have responded to ethnic origin surveys as at 1 October 1993. Respondents account for 91 per cent. of all staff; a total of 510 respondents—7·7 per cent. of all staff overall —are of ethnic minority origin.

  "London: Making the Best Better"
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount paid to the Evening Standard for distributing and advertising the questionnaire and document "London: Making the Best Better"; if separate amounts where payable for (i) distribution and (ii) advertising; if any advertisements were provided free of charge as part of a distribution package; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information about the amount paid to the Evening Standard is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a full list of all polling organisations who were consulted about draft copies, or asked to undertake pilot studies, in connection with his questionnaire accompanying "London: Making the Best Better"; what was the total cost involved in such pilot studies or consultations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The organisations invited to tender to undertake a pilot study on the questionnaire accompanying the document "London: Making the Best Better" were 444
  MORI, NOP and the London Research Centre. The contract was awared to MORI, at a total cost of £4,500 including VAT.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what who was responsible for printing copies of the documen, "London: Making the Best Better" and the accompanying questionnaire.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department of the Environment was responsible for printing both the booklet amd the questionnaire. The work was competitively tendered and the contract awarded to Flair Press Ltd.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the task of analysing replies to the document "London: Making the Best Better" has been plat out to tender.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer10 December 1993]: No. The analysis of the replies is being undertaken within my Department.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many replies so far received to the document "London: Making the Best Better" questionnaire have been deemed invalid.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: Of about 6,500 replies received so far, under 30 are unusable.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider including within the remit of the new agency for environmental protection responsibility for the promotion of recycling and environmentally friendly technology.

  Mr. Yeo
  The proposed environment agency will bring together the work of the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the local authority waste regulators. The detailed functions, powers and duties of this new agency are still under consideration.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the successive estimates given by his Department of the cost of ending sewage sludge dumping in Britain, together with the names of the external consultants employed to assist with the preparation of such estimates.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department said in October 1990 in evidence to the House of Lords Committee on the European Communities, that the initial estimate was of the order of £200 million. In the document "Paying for Quality" published by the Director General for Water Services in July 1993 an estimate of capital costs of around £440 million was given. Further estimates are now being made by the sewerage undertakers in preparation for their submissions to the director general in the context of the current periodic review of price limits.

  Coal Workings (Toxic Leaks)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he plans to ensure that leakage of toxic substances from coal workings will continue to be dealt with following privatisation; and if he will make a statement.
  445
  Mr. Yeo
  It is for mineowners to ensure that they comply with any discharge consents determined by the National Rivers Authority. The Government will ensure that British Coal's current responsibilities with regard to the physical legacy of mining will be carried forward after privatisation.

  Harzardous Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements will be put in place to replace Directive 78/319/EEC on toxic and dangerous waste.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Council of Ministers has agreed that member states will continue to apply the provisions of this directive, which is repealed on 12 December, until the Hazardous Waste Directive—91/689/EEC—comes into force in the spring of 1995. In the United Kingdom this agreement will be effected by retaining waste management controls including the 1980 Special Waste Regulations. The regulations will be revised to implement the new directive; they will be the subject of future cons ltation.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom's submission to the European Commission under article 37, provisions of the Euratom treaty concerning radioactive waste discharges from THORP.

  Mr. Yeo
  The "General Data" required to be provided to the EC Commission under article 37 of the Euratom treaty on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, have been placed in the Library of the House. The Commission gave a favourable opinion on this plant as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 21 May 1992.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what expenditure was incurred by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93, and what is the projected expenditure for 1993–94, on work contracted out in sampling and monitoring;

  (2) what expenditure was incurred by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93, and what is the projected expenditure for 1993–94, on work contracted out in research on areas other than preparation for technical guidance;

  (3) what expenditure was incurred by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93, and what is the projected expenditure for 1993–94, on work contracted out in information technology;

  (4) what expenditure was incurred by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93, and what is the projected expenditure for 1993–94, on work contracted out in preparation for technical guidance;

  (5) what expenditure was incurred by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93, and what is the projected
  446
  expenditure for 1993–94, on work contracted out in management consultancy services other than information technology.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Projected 1993–94

  Sampling and monitoring

  1·3

  1·6

  2·0

  Research

  6·0

  4·9

  4·0

  Information technology

  0·4

  1·4

  1·4

  Technical guidance

  0·6

  1·0

  0·4

  Management consultancy

  0·3

  0·7

  0·9

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current minimum standards of qualification and industrial experience required by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for new entrants(a) to the pollution inspector grade and (b) to the assistant pollution inspector grade; and if he will make a statement on planned changes in these requirements.

  Mr. Yeo
  New entrant pollution inspectors and assistant pollution inspectors require a relevant honours degree or equivalent qualification. They must also possess relevant professional experience—normally at least five years for pollution inspectors and two years for assistant pollution inspectors—ideally in a process industry. In addition, they must hold a current United Kingdom driving licence. There are no plans to change these requirements.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the salary costs of civil service staff working for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94, and what are the projected salary costs for 1993–94, for(a) inspectoral staff and (b) all other staff.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is as follows—in £
  million:

  1991–92

  Projected 1992–93

  1993–94

  Inspectors' salaries

  4·5

  5·3

  7·2

  Other salaries

  2·1

  3·3

  4·6

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of external entrants to(a) the pollution inspector grade and (b) to the assistant pollution inspector grade in each year since 1984; and if he will make a statement on planned changes to the ratio of PIs to APIs at recruitment.

  Mr. Yeo
  The pollution inspector and assistant pollution inspector grades were not established until 1989 and 1990 respectively. Recruitment since then is as follows:

  Number of external recruits

  Date of recruitment campaign

  PI

  API

  1989

  8

  —

  1990

  36

  7

  1991

  32

  9

  1992

  24

  1

  447
  Recruitment from each campaign is geared to HMIP's needs at the time and not to any predetermined PI/API ratio.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to give a substantive reply to the matters raised with him in a letter dated 16 October by Occan and Morton consultants of Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Baldry
  The matters raised in this letter have already been dealt with in official correspondence and in correspondence from the authors of the report by Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of funding for the National Rivers Authority in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Yeo
  Grant-in-aid paid to the National Rivers Authority was £99·518 million in 1990–91, £83·850 million in 1991–92 and £81·802 million in 1992–93. The reductions are more than offset by increases in income from non-grant sources. Expenditure on grant-aided functions increased by £14 million to £188 million between 1990–91 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the expected level of funding for the National Rivers Authority in 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Yeo
  The public expenditure plans announced on 30 November envisage grant-in-aid funding to the National Rivers Authority of £67·861 million in 1994–95 and £59·876 million in 1995–96. Year on year reductions in grant support largely reflect efficiency savings, and increases in forecast income.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of the reasons for the cuts in National Rivers Authority funding for 1993–94.

  Mr. Yeo
  Since the 1992 autumn statement there have been no reductions in grant-in-aid provision for the National Rivers Authority for 1993–94. However, I understand that the authority may underspend its provision.

  Ecclesiastical Buildings
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he is considering in relation to the way in which listed building consent is unnecessary in connection with ecclesiastical buildings owned by the Church of England.

  Mr. Baldry
  Responsibility for the subject of this question is a matter for the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations the Urban Regeneration Agency has had with local authorities; and if he will list those authorities.
  448
  Mr. Baldry
  David Taylor, the chief executive, and his senior staff are undertaking an extensive programme of regional visits to help inform the development of English Partnerships—the Urban Regeneration Agency—strategy. On each visit they have met representatives from several of the region's local authorities. I will ask Mr. Taylor to write to the hon. Member with a list of the local authorities concerned. Mr. Taylor is also about to meet representatives from local authority associations and individual authorities to discuss the development of a unified financing regime for English Partnerships. In addition, my Department has consulted all local authorities on our draft guidance to English Partnerships which was published in August 1993.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the Urban Regeneration Agency is to be based.

  Mr. Baldry
  English Partnerships—the Urban Regeneration Agency—will have a strong regional structure including a small London office. Its central administrative functions will be based outside London. Other decisions on the locations of its offices have yet to be taken.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on progress in establishing the Urban Regeneration Agency;

  (2) if he will state the budget for 1993–94 and 1994–95 for the Urban Regeneration Agency.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Urban Regeneration Agency, under its new name of English Partnerships, was launched on 10 November. It has taken over from my Department responsibility for the city grant programme with a budget for the remainder of 1993–94 of £34 million. From April 1994, it will incorporate the derelict land grant and English Estates programmes. For 1994–95, English Partnerships will have a budget of around £250 million including grant-in-aid and estimated receipts from its own activities and the European Union.

  City Pride
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the budget for city pride for the years
  1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  No specific resources are set aside for city pride.

  Allerton Estate, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce his decision in relation to the estate action bid, submitted by Bradford council, to regenerate the Allerton estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I expect to announce decisions on this and other bids for estate action resources later this month along with local authority HIP allocations.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the more strategic functions which will have to be done at a level above unitary councils referred to in the Minister's letter of 22 November to all hon. Members.
  449
  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning had land use planning particularly in mind. Annex B of the policy guidance which we have issued to the Local Government Commission suggests that shared arrangements may also be necessary for functions like transport planning, library and archive services, or emergency planning. Paragraph 17 of that guidance draws attention to the special position of law and order services, where the combining of local government areas may be necessary in order to preserve appropriate structures.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to imposing a ban on the sale of fridges that use ozone-depleting substances and global warming gases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The production of chlorofluorocarbons is to be phased out in 1995, and the use within the European Community of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in 2015. The use of HCFC's as refrigerants in domestic fridges and freezers will be banned from 1996, and in industrial refrigeration from 2000. There are no restrictions on the use of HFC's as refrigerants. These have some global warming potential but are essential to enable the industry to move away from ozone-depleting CFC's and HCFC's.

  These controls provide strong encouragement to the fridge manufacturing industry to move out of ozone- depleting substances. A ban on sales would not conform to current deregulation initiatives, nor to our commitments under the Montreal protocol. It would threaten free trade within the single market. It would cost jobs and severely hamper the competitiveness of British industry. For these reasons, the Government do not feel that a ban on sales would be appropriate.

  Housing
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the names of the authorities to be included in the programme for housing transfers by councils in 1994–95

  Sir George Young
  I am today announcing the names of the 12 authorities who will be able to proceed, on a voluntary basis and subject to the approval of their tenants, with proposals to transfer their housing stock to housing associations during 1994–95.

  I am pleased that 14 authorities responded to our invitation and that, as a result of an expanded programme, it has been possible to programme some 50,000 dwellings.

  The 12 authorities which have successfully gained a place on the 1994–95 disposals programme, together with the 15 intended recipient housing associations are as follows:

  (a) (i) a disposal by Basingstoke and Deane borough council to Basingstoke and Upper Test Housing Association of not more than 4,900 dwelling houses;
  (ii) a disposal by Basingstoke and Deane borough council to Basingstoke and North Hampshire Housing Association of not more than 4,800 dwelling houses;

  (b) a disposal by Castle Point borough council to Castle Point Housing Association of not more than 1,900 dwelling houses;

  (c) (i) a disposal by Cherwell district council to Banbury Homes Housing Association of not more than 3,483 dwelling houses;
  450
  (ii) a disposal by Cherwell district council to Cherwell Valley Housing Association of not more than 3,489 dwelling houses;

  (d) a disposal by Harborough district council to South Leicestershire Housing Association of not more than 2,853 dwelling houses;

  (e) a disposal by Maldon district council to Plume Housing Association of not more than 2,100 dwelling houses;

  (f) a disposal by Malvern Hills district council to Elgar Housing Association of not more than 4,900 dwelling houses;

  (g) a disposal by Mid Beds district council to Mid Beds Housing Association of not more than 3,015 dwelling houses;

  (h) a disposal by North Dorset district council to North Dorset Housing Association of not more than 3,000 dwelling houses;

  (i) a disposal by Thanet district council to Thanet Community Housing Association of not more than 1,760 dwelling houses;

  (j) a disposal by Vale of White Horse district council to the Vale Housing Association of not more than 5,000 dwelling houses;

  (k) a disposal by Walsall metropolitan borough council to Beechdale Community Housing Association of not more than 1,548 dwelling houses;

  (l) (i) a disposal by Wychavon district council to Evesham and Pershore Housing Association of not more than 4,144 dwelling houses; and
  (ii) a disposal by Wychavon district council to Droitwich Spa and Rural Housing Association of not more than 2,626 dwelling houses.

  The programme comprises some 50,000 dwellings valued at more than £560 million.

  Section 135 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 enables the Secretary of State to control housing stock disposals through this annual programme.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received a copy of the interim report by Sir Michael Latham to the joint review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  Sir Michael Latham has now presented his interim report, which was due before the end of the year, and I have received a copy. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  I announced the appointment of Sir Michael as the independent reviewer for the joint Government/industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry to the House on 5 July this year.

  Sir Michael's final report will be completed in July 1994 and will contain recommendations to Government and other bodies about practical reforms to reduce conflict and litigation and to encourage productivity and competitiveness.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases the Crown Prosecution Service has not brought to court in each of the last seven years for which figures are available.
  451
  The Attorney-General
  The number of defendants whose case did not proceed in each of the last seven years was:

  Numbers

  11987

  118,991

  1988

  194,693

  1989

  213,965

  1990

  227,489

  1991

  262,139

  1992

  281,121

  21993

  218,466

  1 April to December.

  2 January to September.

  These figures include cases where proceedings were dropped by the CPS, cases where the prosecution was unable to proceed because the defendant had died CT could not be traced, and cases adjourned sine die.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the level of expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service for each of the last seven years for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  Gross expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service from its two votes in each of the last seven years was as follows:

  £'000

  11986–87

  74,153

  1987–88

  133,840

  1988–89

  156,882

  1989–90

  184,141

  1990–91

  213,431

  1991–92

  242,677

  1992–93

  273,748

  Category

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Lawyers

  1,208

  1,269·5

  1,374·5

  1,427·5

  1,611·5

  1,874·5

  2,068·5

  2,181·5

  Legal Trainees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  123

  121

  144

  Administrators

  1,910

  2,841

  2,629·8

  3,100·5

  3,487·5

  3,674·5

  4,094·5

  4,191·5

  Total

  3, 118

  3,750·5

  4,004·3

  4,528

  5,178

  5,672

  6,284

  6,517

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Franchises
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations he has received on the recent change in the law relating to television franchises and its possible effect on smaller, regional television companies.

  Mr. Brooke
  This year, I have received 69 representations from hon. Members on the ownership restrictions on the ITV companies, as well as 22 from broadcasters, advertisers, other organisations and 20 from members of the public. The correspondence has included comments about the smaller regional television companies.

  Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the latest figures from the business sponsorship incentive scheme.

  Mr. Sproat
  The figures for 1992–93 indicate a record increase of 33 per cent. in the number of awards and an 452
  1 Part year.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were brought to court in which the Crown Prosecution Service failed to secure a conviction for each of the last seven years for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of defendants whose case was dismissed in magistrates' courts and the number acquitted in the Crown Court for the last seven years was:

  Magistrates courts

  Crown Court

  11987

  20,051

  6,122

  1988

  25,853

  9,422

  1989

  27,437

  9,369

  1990

  28,795

  8,726

  1991

  26,644

  9,551

  1992

  25,210

  9,227

  21993

  16,781

  6,900

  1 April to December.

  2 January to September.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many full-time staff equivalent were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service for each of the last seven years for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  The table provides the numbers of full-time staff equivalent employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in October each year, beginning in 1986.

  additional £1·9 million for the arts. It is likely that in 1993–94 the scheme will prove to be even more effective. In recognition of the great success of the scheme, I recently announced that I am increasing its budget by £300,000 to £4·8 million in 1994–95.

  BBC Licence Fee
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next plans to meet the chairman of the BBC governors to discuss the BBC licence fee.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans at present to meet the chairman of the BBC to discuss the television licence fee.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the site of the headquarters of the national lottery.

  Mr. Sproat
  The site of the headquarters of the national lottery will be a matter for the appointed licensee. Those tendering for the licence will be aware of the advantages of locating in an area receiving Government incentives.

  Councils of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has made, following the decisions of the European Councils in Edinburgh 1992 and Brussels 1993, to increase the transparency and accountability of decision-making, including the recording of votes for each member state, at meetings of European Community Councils of Ministers at which his Department is represented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government fully support the conclusions reached at Edinburgh and Brussels on openness. On the matter of recording of votes, the Foreign Affairs Council on 6 December agreed that votes on legislative decisions would be published automatically unless a majority of the Council opposed this. This is fully consistent with the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council last December.

  Voting details are now published by the Council secretariat after Council meetings. We shall ensure that this information is provided to Parliament.

  Windsor Castle Fire
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest estimated total cost to public funds of the Windsor castle fire.

  Mr. Sproat
  It is at present estimated that the cost of the Windsor castle restoration will be between £30 and £40 million of which about £9 to £12 million will be met from public funds.

  Independent Television
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on independent television.

  Mr. Brooke
  My aim is to ensure that the regulatory framework allows the ITV companies to flourish and to maintain and improve the programme services they provide to audiences in the United Kingdom and overseas, where new opportunities are opening up for United Kingdom broadcasters.

  Opera
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research he has conducted into the popularity of opera; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Figures made available to the Arts Council by the British Market Research Bureau indicate that 2·8 million—or over 6 per cent.—of the adult population attend opera performances. This represents an increase of over 30 per cent. in the last five years. Recent studies have also shown that, in addition to those who attend opera, 7 million people now have an interest in the art form. I warmly congratulate all those involved in opera in this country on this remarkable achievement.

  Television Programmes
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what requirement he has placed on commercial television companies to broadcast British-made programmes; if this requirement applies to BSkyB; and if he will make a statement.
  454
  Mr. Brooke
  Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, Channel 3 licence holders are required to broadcast regional programmes, of which a suitable proportion should be made within the area. No such requirement applies to BSkyB. But under the EC Television Without Frontiers Directive, all United Kingdom broadcasters, where practicable, have to reserve a majority of their transmission time, subject to certain exclusions, for European works.

  Arts Events
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how he intends to improve on the latest figures for attendance at arts events.

  Mr. Brooke
  The improvement of access to the arts is a cornerstone of the Government's policies for the arts, and is also a primary aim of the Arts Council. All Arts Council clients work to enlarge their audiences. Specific marketing initiatives support and direct their work; the latest figures point to the continuing success of these initiatives.

  Tourism
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many civil servants his Department employs with responsibilities for tourism; and what is the total cost of their salaries.

  Mr. Sproat
  There are 20 staff employed in my Department's tourism division, including one who works part-time. It is part of the division's role to ensure that the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board make effective and efficient use of the money voted to them by Parliament. The division's salary budget for 1993–94 is £448,820.

  BBC Funding
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to the funding of the BBC; and when he plans to publish his proposals concerning the renewal of the BBC charter.

  Mr. Brooke
  I hope to publish a White Paper early next year setting out the Government's proposals for the future of the BBC, including its funding.

  Sport (Drug Misuse)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if, when he next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, he will discuss with him the problems of drug misuse in sport.

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Sports Council regularly to discuss matters of mutual concern, including the misuse of drugs in sport.

  Orchestral Concerts
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many orchestral concerts he has attended in his official capacity since taking office; and how many of these were in London.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since taking office I have attended 23 concerts involving orchestras or ensembles of various size: 18 of these were in London.

  Rugby Football
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grants from public funds have been paid to the Rugby Football Union for the rebuilding of its ground at Twickenham; what further grants are proposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  None.

  Ecclesiastical Buildings
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes he is considering in relation to the way in which listed building consent is unnecessary for work in connection with ecclesiastical buildings owned by the Church of England.

  Mr. Brooke
  The intention is that the exemption should in future be confined to buildings used primarily as places of worship, and some curtilage structures, and should be available to the Church of England and other church bodies whose internal control systems for works to such buildings meet the requirements of the code of practice which I published on 17 December 1992 at column 370. Following discussions with Church and amenity interests, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are considering to what extent curtilage structures should be included in these arrangements, and what special provision should be made for cathedral complexes. Our conclusions will be embodied in an order under section 60(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which will be laid before the House in due course.

  Film Industry
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with representatives of the film industry.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his definition of(a) security assurances and (b) security guarantees with regard to (i) the use of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom against a non-nuclear weapon state and (ii) the commitment of the United Kingdom to defend a non-nuclear weapon state against the use or threet of use of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regard a security guarantee as a commitment through an alliance, such as it contained in article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, under which we and other states parties have undertaken collectively to take the necessary action to restore and maintain the security of each state member of the Atlantic alliance.

  We have in addition issued positive and negative nuclear security assurances to certain non-nuclear weapon states in the following terms:
  "The United Kingdom affirms its intention, as a Permament Member of the United Nations Security Council, to seek
  456
  immediate Security Council action to provide assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon State, party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, that is a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
  This assurance was given in the United Nations Security Council on 17 June 1968 and was welcomed by the Security Council resolution 255 two days later.
  "Britain undertakes not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States, which are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to other internationally binding commitments not to manufacture or acquire nuclear explosive devices, except in the case of an attack on the United Kingdom, it's dependent territories, it's armed forces or it's allies by such a State in asociation or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.

  The United Kingdom gave this assurance at the United Nations special session on disarmament on 28 June 1978.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the ratification of the START—strategic arms reduction talks—1 treaty by the Parliament of Ukraine on 18 November.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We issued a statement on 30 November about the Ukrainian Parliament's resolution which ratified the START 1 treaty. A copy of the statement has been placed in the House of Commons library.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to meet Ukrainian officials and politicians to discuss the ratification of the START 1 treaty by the Parliament of Ukraine on 18 November.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have already discussed this question with Ukrainian Government officials, and have made clear our concerns along the lines of the public statement we made on 30 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. We have also made our views clear to members of the Ukrainian Parliament.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has received from Ukraine a draft treaty on security guarantees for Ukraine; and what plans his Department has to respond to such a draft treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received from the Ukrainian ambassador a copy of a draft security treaty for signature by the five nuclear weapon states. The draft treaty would come into force on entry into force of the START 1 treaty, and it does not commit Ukraine to accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—NPT—as a non-nuclear weapon state. We have made clear to the Ukrainian Government that Ukraine will be covered by our national security assurances once she accedes to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to discuss the ratification of the START 1 treaty by the Parliament of Ukraine on 18 November with his NATO counterparts(a) prior to and (b) at the NATO summit in January 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This question was discussed at the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 2
  457
  December. Allies agreed that NATO should consider in the context of preparations for its January summit what steps the alliance might take to encourage the early entry into force and rapid implementation of all provisions of the START 1 treaty.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent Council of Europe document concerning the influx of illegal settlers from Turkey into northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement on Government policy regarding this official Council of Europe document.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We too are concerned by reports of an influx of settlers from Turkey into northern Cyprus. The issue needs to be addressed in the context of an overall settlement. We share the hope of the United Nations Secretary-General that progress can be made with a resumption of intercommunal talks in the new year. We shall continue to support him in his efforts to achieve this.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Indian Government as to the recent activities of the Indian security forces in occupied Kashmir following the disturbance at Sopore in which a number of people were killed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the security situation in Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister and Home Minister on 15 November. Following the incident at Sopore on 26 November our high commission in New Delhi asked the Indian Home Ministry for details. We were informed that some 15 people were killed, including 11 militants, following an attack on the Indian army.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 278, if he will specify the seal and whale species for which the Norwegian Government are requesting exemptions from the European Council habitats directive.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Norwegian Government have asked for exemptions from the European Community's habitats directive in respect of grey, harbour, harp, hooded and ring seals; and minke, fin and killer whales.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to resist any attempt by the Norwegian Government to secure exemptions from the EC habitats directive in respect of seals and whales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We oppose the commercial hunting of whales and support the listing of seal species in the annexes of the EC Habitats Directive. Norway's requests for exemptions from the directive are, however, a matter for the Community as a whole. We shall consult with other member states in preparing the Community's response.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the full membership of the British delegation to the European Union Committee of the Regions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As I told the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) in my written reply on 28 October at column 735, we have proposed the following list of nominees for appointment by the Council to the European Community Committee of the Regions:

  England

  Councillor Simon Day

  Devon County

  Conservative

  Lady Anson DL JP

  Waverley District

  Conservative

  Sir Peter Bowness CBE Dl

  London Borough of Croydon

  Conservative

  Councillor Colin Warbrick CBE

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough

  Conservative

  Councillor Christopher Penn

  Suffolk County

  Conservative

  Councillor Toby Harris

  London Borough of Haringey

  Labour

  Councillor Albert Bore

  Birmingham Metropolitan Borough

  Labour

  Councillor Josie Farrington

  Lancashire County

  Labour

  Councillor George Gill

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough

  Labour

  Councillor Dennis Pettitt

  Nottinghamshire County

  Labour

  Councillor Janet Sillett

  Norwich District

  Labour

  Councillor Graham Tope

  London Borough of Sutton

  Liberal Democrat

  Councillor David Belotti

  East Sussex County

  Liberal Democrat

  Councillor Roy Cross

  Richmondshire District

  Independent

  Scotland

  Councillor Charles Gray

  Strathclyde Region

  Labour

  Councillor Rosemary McKenna

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District

  Labour

  Councillor Brian Meek

  Edinburgh District

  Conservative

  Councillor Duncan McPherson

  Highland Region

  Independent

  Councillor Daniel Coffey JP

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun District

  SNP

  Wales

  Councillor John Evans

  Rhymney Valley District

  Labour

  Lord Kenyon

  Wrexham Borough

  459

  Conservative

  Councillor Eurig Wyn

  Gwynnedd County

  Plaid Cymru

  Northern Ireland

  Councillor Reg Empey

  Lord Mayor of Belfast

  UUP

  Councillor Dennis Haughey

  Cookstown Borough

  SDLP

  Alternate Members England

  Councillor John Morgan OBE

  Test Valley District

  Conservative

  Councillor Doreen Fleming OBE

  Fenland District

  Conservative

  Councillor Fraser Mitchell

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough

  Conservative

  Councillor Elgar Jenkins OBE

  Bath District

  Conservative

  Councillor Paul White

  Essex County

  Conservative

  Councillor John Battye

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough

  Labour

  Councillor Hedley Salt

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough

  Labour

  Councillor Kenneth Bodfish

  East Sussex County

  Labour

  Councillor Ian Swithinbank

  Northumberland County

  Labour

  Councillor Sally Powell

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  Labour

  Councillor Peter Soulsby

  Leicester District

  Labour

  Councillor Peter Cocks CBE

  Cornwall County

  Liberal Democrat

  Councillor Tony Prior

  South Somerset District

  Liberal Democrat

  Councillor Milner Whiteman

  Bridgnorth District

  Independent

  Scotland

  Councillor Keith Geddes

  Lothian Region

  Labour

  Councillor Jean McFadden

  Glasgow District

  Labour

  Councillor Marcus Humphrey

  Grampian Region

  Conservative

  Councillor Peter Peacock

  Highland Region

  Independent

  Councillor Clive Sneddon

  North East Fife District

  Liberal Democrat

  Wales

  Councillor Keith Griffiths

  Gwent County

  Labour

  460

  Councillor Bill Hughes

  Swansea City

  Conservative

  Councillor Jill Evans

  Rhondda Borough

  Mid Glamorgan County

  Plaid Cymru

  Northern Ireland

  Councillor Simpson Gibson

  Ards Borough

  UDUP

  Alderman Sean Neeson

  Mayor of Carrickfergus

  Alliance Party

  Mrs. Parveen Akhtar Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for Mrs. Parveen Akhtar Ahmed, the wife of Mr. Tariq Hussain Ahmed, of Bradford to be interviewed at the high commission in Islamabad as a matter of urgency; when Mrs. Ahmed was granted a visa to join her husband in the United Kingdom; whether her passport carries a stamp confirming that she has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom; if he will arrange for Mr. Ahmed to be given full information about what documentation is required before Mrs. Ahmed attends an interview to determine when she is to be granted permission to rejoin her husband; for how long Mrs. Ahmed has been seeking to return to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information in London about Mrs. Parveen Akhtar Ahmed's application for entry clearance, I have asked the British high commission in Islamabad to let me have a report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Aisha Bibi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is going to be taken by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad into the application by Aisha Bibi—Ref: HO K461344; and HUL/338/93—to join her husband, Zaib Alam Khan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information in London about an entry clearance application from Aisha Bibi, I have asked the British high commission In Islamabad to let me have a report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pledges have been made by donor Governments to finance the Organisation of African Unity initiative in respect of Burundi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Several major donors have expressed an interest in providing financial and logistical support for the OAU's International Mission for Protection, Observation and Confidence-building in Burundi. Discussions between potential donors and the OAU have been taking place in Addis Ababa.
  461
  We have no plans to contribute towards financing the OAU initiative. The United Kingdom has already committed one million dollars to the United Nations Trust Fund for Liberia and we anticipate that other European partners, who did not contribute to this fund, will take the lead in Burundi.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrival of OAU forces in Burundi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that the OAU plan to send 20 civilians and 180 military personnel in the first instance. As far as we know, none have yet arrived in Burundi.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mediation efforts are currently taking place in Burundi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Both the OAU Secretary-General's representative, Senegal's representative in Ethiopia, Ambassador Fall and the United Nations Under-Secretary General, James Jonah, have recently visited Burundi to discuss the situation with the parties concerned. The United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, has been holding discussions in Burundi since 2 December. The OAU discussed Burundi at its mini-summit in Cairo on 7 December.

  Angola (Arms Embargo)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the recently lifted arms embargo on Angola was imposed; what publicity was given to the decision at the time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  When Angola became independent in 1976, the restrictions on the supply of defence equipment which at that time applied to the Soviet Union and its close allies, were applied to Angola. We are not aware that this policy was made public.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his best estimate of the likely cost to London Underground of compensation sought by customers under the relevant citizen charters arising from the major breakdowns on the system from 24 November onwards.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground currently estimates that the value of the claims made under their customer charter will be between £150,000 and £200,000.

  Road Safety Database
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 6 December,Official Report, column 22, which other member state abstained in the vote on setting up a Community road safety database.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The other member state to abstain was Germany.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what so far has been the cost to public funds of railway privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The costs set out include those of special advisers where appropriate, and the costs attributable to preparations for the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of Rail Regulation before the start of this financial year:

  Department of Transport: Running costs, etc.

  £ million

  1991–92

  0·5

  1992–93

  1·2

  1993–94 expected expenditure

  1·5

  Department of Transport: Consultancy costs

  £ million

  1991–92

  0·5

  1992–93

  5·5

  1993–94 expected expenditure

  12·0

  The Department of Transport's internal BR privatisation costs cannot be separately identified before September 1991.

  Office of passenger rail franchising

  £ million

  1993–94 expected expenditure

  3·4

  Office of rail regulator

  £ million

  1993–94 expected expenditure

  3·3

  British Rail's costs and estimates are a matter for British Rail.

  Testing Stations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has in respect of the casual staff currently employed in testing stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The vehicle inspectorate—VI—has full peronnel responsibility for such staff. VI continues to employ casual staff because this allows it the flexibility it needs to deal with fluctuating demand and other short term staffing needs. Casual appointments will be kept under review and casual staff will be recruited, retained or released in order to meet the needs existing at any one time.

  Electronic Road Tolling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends that electronic road tolling should apply to trunk roads which form part of the trans-European road network but which are not classified as motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  In his statement on 2 December about the Government's plans for motorway charging at column 650

  463
  my right hon. Friend said that the precise definition of the network to be charged was an issue for further consideration.

  Motorways
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport what communications he has had with either the Commission or the European Community or the Governments of its member states concerning charging vehicles for use of motorways; and if he regards such schemes or proposals as a component of the single internal market in transport.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: My right hon. Friend maintains regular contact with the Commission and his colleagues in other member states on motorway charging.

  Council directive 93/89/EEC, adopted on 25 October this year, sets out, among other things, the conditions under which member states may impose tolls or user charges on heavy goods vehicles over 12 tonnes gross on motorways and similar roads. This direcive will help eliminate distortion of competition in road goods transport in the European Community.

  A38
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to announce the preferred route for the improvements to the A38 trunk road between Saltash and Trerulefoot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: We are still considering responses to the recent public consultation, including suggestions for alternative routes.

  I hope to announce the preferred route in spring 1944.

  Research Laboratory, Crowthorne
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the size of the land holdings of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory at Crowthorne; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Under a valuation survey conducted in 1988 by Hillier Parker on behalf of the PSA, the size of the TRL site was found to be approximately 256 English acres which is 103·6 hectares.

  A privatisation study is presently being conducted at TRL; until this has been completed I am unable to give more information.

  Motorways (Noise)
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce type approval standards for the approval of noise levels produced by motorway road surfaces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Type approval standards are not appropriate for the noise levels arising from road surfaces. The Department provides a specification setting limits on the surface texture, which seeks to minimise the level of noise from traffic consistent with safety requirements for adequate skidding resistance.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product the overseas aid budget will be in 1994–95, assuming the figures for the growth of the economy given in the Budget.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total provision for ODA's external assistance programmes, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30 November, amounts to 0·34 per cent. of forecast GDP in 1994–95, on the basis of the figures given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. Not all of ODA's total provision counts as official development assistance under the OECD development assistance committee criteria. Internationally accepted ratios of overseas aid to gross national product (GNP) are calculated annually for the development assistance committee of the OECD, according to agreed international criteria and on the basis of expenditure by calendar year not on planning figures.

  Prices
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest information he has for(a) the last quarter and (b) over the last 12 months of the change in (i) manufacturers' prices and (ii) producer prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  The available information for October 1993 is as follows:

  Producer prices—all manufacturing

  Materials and fuel purchased

  Output prices

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Increase over last three months

  -2·4

  0·2

  Increase over last twelve months

  0·9

  4·0

  The increase over the last three months will be affected by seasonal fluctuations.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the underlying rate of inflation is accounted for by changes in the price of(a) clothing and footwear, (b) household and leisure goods and (c) council tax.

  Mr. Nelson
  The underlying rate of inflation, as measured by the 12-month percentage movement in the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments, stood at 2·8 per cent. in October 1993. Of this clothing and footwear contributed 0·06 percentage points household and leisure goods 0·13 percentage points and council tax/community charge/rates -0·30 percentage points towards the overall figure.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a table giving business investment measured in current prices as a percentage of gross domestic product, measured in current prices(a) for each year since 1974 and (b) for each quarter since 1988; and what was the average for the periods 1974 to 1979 and 1979 to 1992;
  465
  (2) what proportion of gross domestic product he estimates is accounted for by gross business investment (a) in 1993–94 and (b) in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest estimates of business investment at current and constant prices and gross domestic product at current and constant market prices to the third quarter of 1993 are available on the CSO database which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library. The relevant database identifiers are DEOO and CAOB at current prices and DEMS and CAOO at constant prices. Her Majesty's Treasury does not publish financial year forecasts of business investment.

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  Total earned income1(£ billion)

  Average earned income (£)

  Total investment income (£ billion)

  Average investment income (£)

  Top 1 per cent.

  24

  95,500

  8

  29,900

  Top 5 per cent.

  62

  49,200

  13

  10,100

  Top 10 per cent.

  95

  37,700

  16

  6,400

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  156

  8,800

  9

  700

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  91

  7,200

  8

  600

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  11

  4,500

  1

  500

  All taxpayers

  345

  13,700

  35

  1,400

  1 Income from employment, self-employment and pensions.

  VAT
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated yield in 1993–94 of the imposition of VAT at(a) 5 per cent., (b) 17·5 per cent. and (c) 22 per cent. on (i) books, (ii) newspapers, (iii) magazines, (iv) rent and (v) fares on passenger transport.

  5 per cent.

  17½per cent.

  22 per cent.

  Books

  95

  330

  415

  Newspapers

  155

  550

  690

  Magazines

  65

  220

  275

  Domestic passenger transport

  330

  1,150

  1,445

  The publication also shows the cost of net standard rating VAT exempt items. Rent on domestic dwellings is exempt and not zero rated. If the exemption were removed the estimate on the basis given above would be £2,300 million at 17·5 per cent. Equivalent calculations for 5 per cent. and 22 per cent. have not been made.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to close the loopholes for VAT liability afforded by the pre-payment of accounts.

  Sir John Cope
  None. Under both United Kingdom and EC law, VAT is chargeable at the rate in force when payment is made if that precedes the delivery of the goods or the issue of a tax invoice.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of VAT charged in each other EC country for(a) food in shops, (b) food in restaurants, (c) books, (d) magazines, (e) newspapers, (f) household fuel, (g) rents, (h) house purchase, (i) children's clothing, (j) community centres and (k) transport fares.

  Sir John Cope
  Rates of VAT charged in each other EC country for food in shops, books, magazines, newspapers, household fuel, house purchase, children's clothing and

  Incomes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total and average investment income and earned income in 1992–93 of(a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the bottom 70 per cent., (e) the bottom 50 per cent., (f) the bottom 10 per cent. of taxpayers and (g) all taxpayers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates are given in the table:

  Sir John Cope
  The actual yield would depend on the effects on consumers behaviour. Without allowing for such behavioural changes, the Treasury publication, 'Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs' shows the cost of not standard rating currently zero rated items. The figures for books, newspapers and magazines has been apportioned into each category using shares of consumers' expenditure. From these figures it is possible to derive the following table in £ million for 1994–95.

  transport fares are set out in the Official Report, 24 November 1993, columns 66-70. VAT rates on food in restaurants, rents and community centres according to the latest information available, are set out in the tables.

  (b) VAT on food in restaurants in the EC

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  19·5

  Denmark

  25

  France

  18·61

  Germany

  8

  Greece

  18 (13)2

  Ireland

  12·5

  Italy

  93

  Luxembourg

  3

  Netherlands

  17·5

  Portugal

  16 (12)4

  Spain

  6, 155

  United Kingdom

  17·5

  1 The following rates apply generally in Corsica: 0·9 per cent., 2·1 per cent., 8 per cent. and 13 per cent.

  2 The rate in brackets applies in the departments of Lesbos, Chios, the Dodecanese and the Cyclades, and in the islands of Thasos, the Northern Sporades, Samothrace and Skyros.

  3 Excluding the supply of food in luxury premises including luxury hotels.

  4 The rate in brackets apply in the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores Archipelagoes.

  5 The standard rate applies to the supply of food in luxury hotels.

  467
  (g) VAT on rents in the EC

  The letting of immovable property is exempt from VAT in every member state, although some member states operate an option to tax in certain circumstances.

  (j) VAT on community centres in the EC

  Leasing of such buildings is exempt in all member states. For purchase (including construction) in other member states the rates in the table on house purchase apply.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the issue of value added tax on imported works of art is likely to be considered at the December meeting of ECOFIN; and what views he will be expressing on this subject at that meeting;

  (2) if he will make a statement of his policy on the future of imported works of art in connection with value added tax;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the possible impact of the imposition of value added tax on imported works of art upon London's world position as a centre for the trade in art objects; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The subject of VAT on second hand goods, including works of art, antiques and collectors items, was discussed again at ECOFIN today and agreement was reached on the Seventh VAT Directive. Under this agreement margin schemes will be extended to all second hand goods. No VAT other than that in the member state of purchase will be payable when works of art, antiques and collectors items are moved from one member state to another.

  Imports of such items into the European Union from third countries will be charged VAT at not less than 5 per cent. except in the United Kingdom where imports of pre-1973 works of art will be charged at an effective rate of 2½ per cent. until mid-1999. Items imported temporarily for resale and subsequent export outside the EU will not be chargeable with VAT. The Commission will review the effects of the new arrangements in 1998 and report to the Council.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have had full consultations with the art trade on these matters throughout the very long period they have been under discussion. The agreement avoids potentially damaging legal actions and means that the United Kingdom art market will have the most favourable VAT regime in the EU and will be able to maintain its pre-eminence in the world.

  Company Failures
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was lost, in the last year for which figures are available, in public revenue in PAYE, national insurance contributions and VAT from(a) companies which went info voluntary creditors liquidation and (b) unincorporated businesses which became bankrupt.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates net public capital expenditure will fall by 1997.
  468
  Mr. Portillo
  Outturn and projections for public sector capital expenditure are set out in table 5.3 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1993–94 the number of people claiming(a) one-parent benefit and (b) the widowed mother's allowance, who are taxpayers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1993–94 it is estimated that about 350,000 taxpayers will claim one-parent benefit and about 40,000 taxpayers will claim widowed mother's allowance.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of additional people brought into the tax system as a result of the freezing of personal tax allowances proposed in the March Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1993–94 no one was brought into income tax as a result of the changes announced in the March Budget. However, about 300,000 more people pay tax in 1993–94 under the Budget proposals compared with statutory indexation of personal allowances.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the total income, both earned and unearned, (b) the total national insurance contributions and (c) the total tax paid by (i) the top 1 per cent., (ii) the top 5 per cent., (iii) the top 10 per cent., (iv) the bottom 50 per cent. and (v) all taxpayers for Scotland, England Wales and Northern Ireland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: Readily available estimates based on the Survey of Personal Incomes are in the tables. For 1980–81 and 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation in 1990–91. husbands and wives are counted separately. The estimates of total income relate to income subject to income tax and exclude non-taxable income such as certain social security benefits. The quantile groups of taxpayers are defined by reference to the number of taxpayers in each country in each year.

  Information on quantile groups of taxpayers within each country of the United Kingdom

  1980–81

  Quantile group of tax unit

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  SCOTLAND

  Top 1

  556

  202

  Top 5

  1,750

  491

  Top 10

  2,870

  732

  Bottom 50

  3,350

  421

  All taxpayers

  11,900

  2,240

  ENGLAND

  Top 1

  6,300

  2,480

  Top 5

  18,200

  5,470

  Top 10

  29,100

  7,790

  Bottom 50

  32,600

  4,170

  All taxpayers

  116,000

  22,300

  WALES

  Top 1

  319

  129

  Top 5

  893

  266

  Top 10

  1,400

  374

  Bottom 50

  1,610

  190

  469

  Quantile group of tax unit

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  All taxpayers

  5,580

  1,040

  NORTHERN IRELAND

  Top 1

  127

  45

  Top 5

  412

  114

  Top 10

  664

  169

  Bottom 50

  727

  87

  All taxpayers

  2,660

  492

  Information on Quantile Groups of Taxpayers within each country of the United Kingdom

  1989–90

  Quantile group of tax unit

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  SCOTLAND

  Top 1

  1,570

  476

  28

  Top 5

  4,680

  1,180

  149

  Top 10

  7,530

  1,730

  286

  Bottom 50

  7,640

  885

  330

  All taxpayers

  28,700

  4,880

  1,370

  ENGLAND

  Top 1

  21,300

  7,100

  231

  Top 5

  53,900

  15,400

  1,180

  Top 10

  81,300

  21,000

  2,320

  Bottom 50

  69,800

  8,400

  3,060

  All taxpayers

  275,000

  51,000

  12,100

  WALES

  Top 1

  885

  283

  13

  Top 5

  2,270

  591

  61

  Top 10

  3,460

  815

  117

  Bottom 50

  3,560

  403

  150

  All taxpayers

  13,100

  2,230

  595

  NORTHERN IRELAND

  Top 1

  522

  163

  9

  Top 5

  1,180

  310

  37

  Top 10

  1,860

  440

  65

  Bottom 50

  1,630

  175

  69

  All taxpayers

  6,510

  1,110

  296

  Information on quantile groups of taxpayers within each country of the United Kingdom

  1990–91

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  percent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Scotland

  Top 1

  1,770

  559

  26

  Top 5

  4,980

  1,340

  120

  Top 10

  7,820

  1,910

  234

  Bottom 50

  7,590

  824

  330

  All taxpayers

  28,900

  5,070

  1,300

  England

  Top 1

  25,400

  8,540

  236

  Top 5

  61,100

  17,900

  1,190

  470

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 10

  91,100

  24,100

  2,360

  Bottom 50

  78,800

  8,950

  3,310

  All taxpayers

  311,000

  58,200

  13,300

  Wales

  Top 1

  804

  248

  13

  Top 5

  2,230

  562

  57

  Top 10

  3,540

  816

  114

  Bottom 50

  3,970

  414

  159

  All taxpayers

  14,200

  2,370

  631

  Northern Ireland

  Top 1

  448

  144

  6

  Top 5

  1,180

  316

  28

  Top 10

  1,800

  439

  57

  Bottom 50

  1,680

  169

  73

  All taxpayers

  6,460

  1,110

  291

  Information on quantile groups of taxpayers within each country of the United Kingdom

  1991–92

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Scotland

  Top 1

  2,080

  665

  27

  Top 5

  5,420

  1,430

  142

  Top 10

  8,310

  1,990

  271

  Bottom 50

  7,770

  788

  317

  All taxpayers

  30,000

  5,170

  1,370

  England

  Top 1

  27,800

  9,420

  257

  Top 5

  65,200

  18,900

  1,280

  Top 10

  96,500

  25,300

  2,590

  Bottom 50

  82,200

  9,040

  3,340

  All taxpayers

  323,000

  60,000

  13,900

  Wales

  Top 1

  934

  288

  15

  Top 5

  2,480

  618

  69

  Top 10

  3,950

  898

  145

  Bottom 50

  4,180

  408

  156

  All taxpayers

  15,300

  2,500

  700

  Northern Ireland

  Top 1

  421

  131

  4

  Top 5

  1,150

  299

  28

  Top 10

  1,770

  418

  57

  Bottom 50

  1,610

  147

  66

  All taxpayers

  6,270

  1,050

  271

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria the United Kingdom's executive director of the World bank uses to determine whether a project merits evaluation by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA determines case by case what examination of loan proposals is required, paying particular attention to adjustment operations and environmentally sensitive projects.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list prospective World bank projects and projects currently being implemented and being evaluated by the Overseas Development Administration and those that are currently being considered for co-financing by the Overseas Development Administration;

  (2) if he will list all World bank projects and structural adjustment loans that the Overseas Development Administration has co-financed in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are compiling the information and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to assist in resolving conflicts in the Narmada valley following the withdrawal of World bank funding for the project.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Project implementation is the responsibility of the Indian authorities. In bilateral contacts with them, we have urged the correct and sensitive handling of the environmental and resettlement issues.

  Kenya
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he took to ensure that the World bank and the IMF took full account of reported corruption in Kenya prior to resuming financial assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We maintain close contact with the World bank and the International Monetary Fund on Kenya and regularly discuss shared concerns, including corruption. We are confident that the IFIs took full account of all relevant factors during their recent review of Kenya's economic position and prospects. At the consultative group meeting last month donors emphasised the need for the Kenya Government to act to ensure that prompt legal action is taken against those involved in corruption.

  Thailand
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the mid-term review of the World's bank's Pak Mun dam project in Thailand in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the Disclosure of Information policy approved by the Bank's board, this report remains confidential. I regret, therefore, that I cannot place a copy in the Library.

  South Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the present and planned resources that are being used by the United Kingdom, European Union, Commonwealth and agencies of the United Nations to assist South Africa to hold free and fair elections and make the transition to a multiparty, multi-ethnic democracy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All aid from Britain and the organisations listed supports change to a democratic and non-racial society in South Africa. Our bilateral aid of £11·7 million in 1992–93 is expected to increase to up to £15 million in 1993–94, plus about £11 million as our annual share of the EC's £68 million programme. We do not have figures for Commonwealth and United Nations activities. The Commonwealth has provided international observers to help monitor and defuse violence during the transition; and the United Nations is providing training for black South Africans. We and the other organisations plan to assist with next year's elections. Our main bilateral contribution will be international election observers.

  Kenya (Cereals Shortage)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government as to the possible supplying of cereals now held in EC intervention to alleviate the shortage of cereals in Kenya; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development will be visiting Kenya in January. We expect the question of how donors can most appropriately help to meet Kenya's food needs during 1994 to be discussed during this visit.

HEALTH

  Fundholders
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the registered population were covered by general practitioner fundholders in total and in each region at(a) 1 April 1992 and (b) 1 April 1993; and what figure she expects to be achieved by 1 April 1994.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 1 April 1992 13 per cent. of the population were registered with general practitioner fundholders. At 1 April 1993 the figure was 25 per cent. and this is expected to grow to about a third of the population from 1 April 1994.

  The regional breakdown is:

  Per cent.

  At 1 April 1992:

  Northern

  16

  Yorkshire

  21

  Trent

  14

  East Anglia

  8

  North West Thames

  14

  North East Thames

  7

  South East Thames

  9

  South West Thames

  15

  Wessex

  15

  Oxford

  23

  South Western

  14

  473

  Per cent.

  West Midlands

  13

  Mersey

  19

  North Western

  9

  At 1 April 1993:

  Northern

  25

  Yorkshire

  23

  Trent

  31

  East Anglia

  25

  North West Thames

  27

  North East Thames

  14

  South East Thames

  22

  South West Thames

  25

  Wessex

  22

  Oxford

  33

  South Western

  19

  West Midlands

  26

  Mersey

  25

  North Western

  17

  Note: All figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Hospital nurses, midwives, health visitors and district nurses England 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Hospital nurses

  330,670

  332,820

  328,060

  326,090

  312,760

  Midwives

  19,090

  19,110

  19,860

  19,640

  20,250

  Health visitors

  10,680

  10,050

  10,480

  10,380

  10,250

  District nurses

  9,390

  10,160

  10,380

  9,900

  9,650

  Practice nurses

  3,480

  4,630

  7,740

  8,780

  9,120

  Project 2000 nurses

  —

  —

  13,000

  10,500

  18,300

  1 Approximate figure.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten and exclude agency staff.

  2. Project 2000 students are shown separately because Project 2000 students are supernumerary and therefore not included in workforce totals.

  Mental Health
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to amend sections 35 and 36 of the Mental Health Amendment Act 1983(a) to endorse treatment to be given to patients detained under section 35 and (b) to enable magistrates to remand mentally disordered offenders to hospital for treatment.

  Mr. Bowis
  None at present, but we shall be keeping in mind the case for amending these provisions should a suitable opportunity arise.

  NHS Pensions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the definition of a national health service pension enhancement; and if such enhancements are available to all national health service pensionable staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no statutory definition of a national health service pension enhancement, but payments based on the crediting of additional services can be made to compensate for the loss of future pension rights on premature or ill-health retirement. Such enhancements are available to all national health service pensionable employees who satisfy certain criteria.
  474
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide an estimate for the value of fund-holding allocations retained by general practitioner fund-holders at the year end.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Although not all general practitioner fundholders' accounts for the year 1992–93 have been audited yet, it is estimated that fundholders achieved efficiency savings of about £28 million or 3·3 per cent., of total budgets. These impressive efficiency gains will be re-invested in further service improvements for patients.

  Nursing Staff
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital nurses, midwives, health visitors and district nurses there were in England at 30 September in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost to her Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  There were four cars and the basic cost was £175,543.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those areas in which it is inappropriate for her to intervene within NHS trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts have the freedom to:Aquire, own and dispose of assets to ensure the most effective use is made of them.
  Make their own cases for capital development direct to the NHS Management Executive (NHSME).
  Borrow money, within annually agreed limits, primarily for new buildings and equipment and for upgrading existing buildings.
  Create their own management structures.
  Employ their own staff, determine their own staffing structures, and set out terms and conditions of employment.
  Advertise their services, within guidelines set down by professonal codes of practice on such advertising.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has a range of reserve powers to intervene in trusts' affairs. These are not to be used routinely.

  NHS Commercial Activities
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what controls she exercises over commercial activities carried out on behalf of the NHS within trust hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for each individual national health service trust to determine the level of commercial activity carried out on its premises, subject to this not being to the detriment of other obligations.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost to the national health service of the free prescription of oral contraceptives.

  Mr. Sackville
  The net ingredient cost of oral contraceptives dispensed or administered on the prescription of general practitioners in England in 1992 was £42·5 million.

  Firearm Deaths
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table on the occupations of people who died as a result of(a) suicides, (b) homicides and (c) accidents and other causes involving (i) shotguns and (ii) other firearms in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish the findings of the Swann inquiry into women's services at Ashworth special hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  The inquiry was set up by and submitted its report to the Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to inquire into allegations of over-medication in certain wards of Ashworth special hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  These allegations have been fully considered and investigated by local management in consultation with the clinical staff concerned. The Special Hopitals Service Authority is currently implementing an action plan for women patients, which includes a review of levels of medication.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the future of the social work service in special hospitals.

  Mr. Bowis
  Social workers play an important role within multi-disciplinary teams at the special hospitals.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in special hospitals have become schizophrenic as a result of the withdrawal of neuroleptic drugs; and how many patients in special hospitals have been over-medicated on neuroleptic drugs, in each of the past two years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about the treatment of individual patients in special hospitals is not available centrally. It is a matter for the Special Hospitals Service Authority.
  476
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the incidents of patient violence at Ashworth special hospital(a) against staff and (b) against other patients, in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Anne-Marie Nelson, chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority, which has responsibility for Ashworth hospital, for details.

  Southend Health Authority
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in resolving the relative underfunding of the Southend health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992–93 Southend health authority received £2·695 million extra funding and in 1993–94 £1·550 million. Under the weighted capitation funding system, health authorities are funded for their resident population. Departmental guidance, EL(92)47 copies of which are available in the Library, gives regional health authorities discretion to use their judgment about the precise distribution of funds which suits their districts' needs, based on the analysis of local information. The present allocation for South Essex health authority is a matter for North East Thames regional health authority and the hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, the chairman for details.

  Mental Health
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of all grants currently approved by her Department to support projects connected with mental health.

  Mr. Bowis
  The mental illness specific grant, introduced in April 1991, is payable to local authorities to enable them to make a significant improvement in the social care services they provide for mentally ill people in the community. This year, 1993–94, £34·4 million is available to 108 local authorities. Their individual allocations are listed in table A, the total includes £1,770,000 approved for revenue costs of short stay hostels under the Department's homeless mentally ill initiative for London. Other grants approved in 1993–94 to support this initiative are as follows:Capital costs of short stay hostels—£1,585,986
  Community psychiatric teams—£1,695,000

  Under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 the Department gives grants towards the administrative—core—costs of national voluntary organisations and to support national development projects or innovative local projects with potential for national application. In the field of mental illness 56 grants are being made to 36 voluntary bodies at a total cost of £2,336,020 in 1993–94. These grants are listed in table B.

  Table A

  Local Authority

  Authorised allocations

  Avon County Council

  585,147

  Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council

  128,955

  Barnet London Borough Council

  253,962

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  128,000

  Bedfordshire County Council

  302,000

  477

  Local Authority

  Authorised allocations

  Berkshire County Council

  428,000

  Bexley London Borough Council

  167,263

  Birmingham Metropolitan Borough Council

  793,567

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  188,998

  Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council

  347,456

  Brent London Borough Council

  280,500

  Bromley London Borough Council

  223,424

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  319,657

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

  108,737

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  141,000

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  379,312

  Camden London Borough Council

  252,497

  Cheshire County Council

  531,496

  Cleveland County Council

  332,657

  Cornwall County Council

  287,000

  Coventry City Council

  207,139

  Croydon London Borough Council

  277,000

  Cumbria County Council

  289,443

  Derbyshire County Council

  567,000

  Devonshire County Council

  614,185

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  173,209

  Dorset County Council

  427,000

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  162,000

  Durham County Council

  378,914

  Ealing London Borough Council

  298,499

  East Sussex County Council

  526,110

  Enfield London Borough Council

  190,870

  Essex County Council

  873,995

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  176,876

  Gloucestershire County Council

  305,000

  Greenwich London Borough Council

  195,388

  Hackney London Borough Council

  289,062

  Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

  234,552

  Hampshire County Council

  879,291

  Haringey London Borough Council

  235,072

  Harrow London Borough Council

  146,554

  Havering London Borough Council

  140,193

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  351,571

  Hertfordshire County Council

  565,335

  Hillingdon London Borough Council

  165,623

  Hounslow London Borough Council

  161,000

  Humberside County Council

  544,964

  Isle of Wight County Council

  89,000

  Isles of Scilly Council

  658

  Islington London Borough Council

  242,386

  Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council

  177,218

  Kent County Council

  949,700

  Kingston-upon-Thames Royal London Borough

  129,477

  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  264,649

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  110,429

  Lambeth London Borough Council

  340,064

  Lancashire County Council

  871,793

  Table B

  Section 64 grants to voluntary organisations

  1993–94

  Voluntary organisation

  Core/Project

  Total £

  Alzheimer's Disease Society

  Core

  130,000

  Alzheimer's Disease Society

  Open learning programe project

  38,000

  Alzheimer's Disease Society

  Influencing community care project

  10,000

  Association for Post Natal Illness

  Core

  10,000

  Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

  Child and adolescent services project

  20,000

  Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

  Core

  10,000

  Brandon Centre

  Adolescent health project

  15,000

  British Institute of Industrial Therapy

  Core

  25,000

  Child Psychotherapy Trust

  Core

  15,000

  478

  Local Authority

  Authorised allocations

  Leeds Metropolitan Borough Council

  505,000

  Leicestershire County Council

  568,242

  Lewisham London Borough Council

  271,260

  Lincolnshire County Council

  345,000

  Liverpool Metropolitan Borough Council

  399,707

  Manchester Metropolitan Borough Council

  386,026

  Merton London Borough Council

  178,456

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Metropolitan Borough Council

  231,000

  Newham London Borough Council

  240,858

  Norfolk County Council

  494,500

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  126,960

  North Yorkshire County Council

  404,693

  Northamptonshire County Council

  320,000

  Northumberland County Council

  175,421

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  657,105

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  156,494

  Oxfordshire County Council

  327,116

  Redbridge London Borough Council

  173,819

  Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council

  141,282

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  150,912

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  178,980

  Salford Metropolitan Borough Council

  159,762

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  235,493

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  122,820

  Sheffield Metropolitan Borough Council

  397,000

  Shropshire County Council

  219,873

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  112,750

  Somerset County Council

  287,859

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  111,816

  Southwark London Borough Council

  256,000

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  126,461

  Staffordshire County Council

  582,540

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  175,300

  Suffolk County Council

  365,019

  Sunderland Metropolitan Borough Council

  208,344

  Surrey County Council

  589,000

  Sutton London Borough Council

  125,396

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  152,250

  Tower Hamlets London Borough Council

  194,143

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  123,500

  Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council

  201,179

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  165,109

  Waltham Forest London Borough Council

  234,000

  Wandsworth London Borough Council

  335,277

  Warwickshire County Council

  276,841

  West Sussex County Council

  441,328

  Westminster City Council

  255,729

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  176,291

  Wiltshire County Council

  303,700

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

  248,113

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  193,381

  479

  Voluntary organisation

  Core/Project

  Total £

  Child Psychotherapy Trust

  Development project

  20,000

  CRUSE—Bereavement Care

  Core

  114,000

  Eating Disorders Association

  Standard setting project

  5,000

  Eating Disorders Association

  Core

  29,000

  Good Practices in Mental Health

  Core

  40,000

  Good Practices in Mental Health

  Mental health rural initiative project

  20,630

  Hyperactive Children's Support Group

  Core

  7,000

  King's Fund Centre

  Positive action project

  25,000

  Making Space

  Charitable project bereavement support project

  40,000

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  Core

  10,000

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  Self help groups project

  20,000

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  Factsheet for children project

  1,920

  Mental Aftercare Association

  Core

  50,000

  Mental Health Foundation

  Core

  50,000

  Mental Health Foundation

  Homeless in London project

  80,000

  Mental Health Foundation

  Special core grant

  50,000

  Mental Health Foundation

  Young minds project

  70,000

  Mental Health Media Council

  Core

  20,000

  NAFSIYAT (Intercultural Therapy)

  Core

  15,000

  National Association for Mental Health (MIND)

  Stress on women project

  10,000

  National Association for Mental Health (MIND)

  Code of practice training

  10,000

  National Association for Mental Health (MIND)

  Audit development project

  55,000

  National Association for Mental Health (MIND)

  Core

  415,000

  National Pyramid Trust

  Outreach project

  20,000

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  Advisory service project

  15,000

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  Core

  91,000

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  Forresters respite care project

  35,000

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  Training project

  30,000

  New Parent Infant Network (NEWPIN)

  Core

  35,000

  New Parent Infant Network (NEWPIN)

  Development officer and training officer

  25,000

  New Parent Infant Network (NEWPIN)

  National newpin development project

  50,000

  Phobic Action

  Core

  20,000

  Rape Counselling and Research Project

  Core

  10,000

  Richmond Fellowship

  Core

  97,000

  Samaritans

  Core

  155,000

  Samaritans

  Multi-cultural outreach project

  8,000

  Schizophrenia A National Emergency (SANE)

  Saneline project

  125,000

  Triumph Over Phobia (TOP)

  Development project

  20,000

  480 481

  Voluntary organisation

  Core/Project

  Total £

  UK Advocacy Network (UKAN)

  Core

  40,000

  Vietnamese Mental Health Project

  Core

  40,000

  Westminster Pastoral Foundation

  Reduction in suicide risk project

  10,000

  Widows Advisory Trust

  Core

  18,000

  Women in Special Hospitals (WISH)

  Core

  25,000

  Women's Therapy Centre

  Core

  15,000

  Women's Therapy Centre

  Information project

  10,000

  Young Minds

  Core

  10,000

  Young Minds

  Leaflet on effect of violence

  1,470

  Birmingham District Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used for the awarding of the contract to oversee personnel issues for the merger of North Birmingham district health authority, East Birmingham district health authority and West Birmingham district health authority to E. M. Knock Associates.

  Mr. Sackville
  We understand that the tender was awarded by North Birmingham district health authority in line with its standing financial instructions. Quotations for the human resources project were invited from five organisations and one individual. The contract was awarded to the lowest priced tender.

  Charing Cross Hospital
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the last structural survey of Charing Cross hospital in London was completed;

  (2) if there was any evidence of concrete fatigue in the last structural survey of Charing Cross hospital in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the North West Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Doughty, chairman of the regional health authority for details.

  Heart Attacks
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has of the number of deaths each year following a heart attack.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for 1988–92 is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths following a heart attack 1(1CD's 410, 411, 412, 413, 414) in England and Wales 1988–92

  ICD's

  Years

  410

  411

  412

  413

  414

  Total

  1988

  96,404

  795

  1

  103

  55,781

  153,084

  1989

  92,466

  610

  0

  71

  57,597

  150,744

  1990

  89,336

  568

  4

  119

  58,132

  148,159

  1991

  87,834

  504

  3

  120

  61,629

  150,090

  1992

  82,932

  463

  0

  125

  62,384

  145,904

  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision.

  410 Acute myocardial infarction.
  482
  411 Other acute and subacute forms of ischaemic heart disease.

  412 Old myocardial infarction.

  413 Angina pectoris.

  414 Other forms of chronic heart disease.

  Registered Homes Act 1984
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics she collects on the operation of the Registered Homes Act 1984; and if she will publish them.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department collects information on the number of homes registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 as at 31 March each year. This relates to registered residential care homes, registered nursing homes and homes registered both as residential homes and nursing homes.

  Information on registered residential care homes is published annually in "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and for Younger Physically Disabled People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes England" and "Residential Accommodation for mentally ill people and people with learning disabilities: Number of local authority, voluntary and private homes and places England".

  For registered nursing homes the information is published annually in "Private Hospitals, Homes and Clinics Registered Under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act".

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of sampling points and the frequency of sampling in each district health authority where samples have been taken to test for the incidence of paralytic shellfish poisoning for the last 24 months; and what have been the results.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Samples of mussels have been taken by environmental health officers for many years from the NE coast of England, where PSP is known to occur seasonally from April to September. Sampling begins fortnightly in April from eight sites from Berwick-on-Tweed to Bridlington, increasing at the height of the season to sampling from each site every week. Results followed the expected

  483
  pattern in 1992 and 1993, peaking at 148·2 microgrammes of Saxitoxin equivalent/100g in June 1992 and 1,587·5 microgrammes of Saxitoxin equivalent/100g in May 1993.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the savings achieved by the competing for quality programme; on what basis he has calculated the figure; and whether this figure was offset against the total cost of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the 18 months to September 1993, provisional estimates suggest the programme will lead to savings of approximately £100 million of savings per year.

  This figure is the difference between the annual cost of activities before testing and their annual cost afterwards,
  484
  taking account of the redundancy and other costs attributable to the individual market tests. Where costs before testing have not been reported, no savings have been attributed.

  European Parliament (Administration)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what errors there were in the information the Cabinet Office communicated to candidates for the European Parliament open competition mentioned in his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 398, on the status of their application for these posts; and what communication he will make to those candidates with regard to the status of their application.

  Mr. Davis
  I am unaware of any errors in the information given by the Cabinet Office to candidates for this competition but I would be happy to look into any specific case brought to my attention.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek from his Italian counterpart a copy of the report prepared by the Italian Nuclear Regulatory Authorities—DISP—evaluating the readiness of Italian nuclear waste storage facilities to receive back reprocessing radioactive wastes from Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  Arrangements for the return of waste are, in the first instance, a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers in line with the contracts between them. These arrangements are supported by inter-governmental letters. Since 1976, BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. The Government intend that these options will be exercised and wastes returned.

  Textiles
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the current average rates of import duties and other restrictions on both textile and clothing products in the United States of America, Australia, South Africa, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Lithuania, Malaysia, Bulgaria, Philippines, Mexico, Argentina and South Korea.

  Mr. Needham
  A table showing import duty rates and remarks on restrictions for textiles and clothing products in the 16 named countries follows.

  In most cases a minimum and maximum rate are shown instead of an average duty rate because textile and clothing products cover a large range of tariff headings. Duty rates for a number of countries are likely to change as a consequence of the Uruguay round agreement. Further information on restrictions may be available from United Kingdom Posts overseas; to check this would have incurred disproportionate costs.

  Duty rate (per cent.)

  Remarks

  USA

  0-38

  38per cent. plus 48·5c/Kg

  No restrictions for United Kingdom textiles.

  Australia

  3-34

  No restrictions. Quota system finished.

  South Africa

  Textiles: Duty calculated on weight, 10 Rand per kilogram, or value, 50 per cent. of total consignment value (FOB), whichever is the greater. Surcharge of 5 per cent.

  Clothing: Duty calculated on weight, 50 Rand per kilogram, or value, 100 per cent. of total consignment value, which-ever is the greater. Surcharge of 15 per cent.

  Quotas are in place but have not been reached.

  China

  3-100

  No known restrictions.

  India

  Textiles: 85 per cent. plus 35 per cent. central excise tariff. Import licence required.

  Clothing: Imports banned.

  486

  Duty rate (per cent.)

  Remarks

  Pakistan

  (a) 95

  (a) Does not include manufacturing tax.

  (b) 110

  (b) Includes manufacturing tax.

  No known restrictions.

  Indonesia

  5-45

  Licensing requirements.

  Sri Lanka

  10-50

  No known restrictions.

  Brazil

  10-20

  No known restrictions.

  Lithuania

  15

  No known restrictions.

  Malaysia

  (a) 2-30

  (a) Textiles: some products have sales tax 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. Surtax.

  (b) 25-35

  (b) Clothing: 10 per cent. sales tax and 5 per cent. surtax for a majority of imports.

  No other restrictions.

  Bulgaria

  5-25

  Temporary import surcharge on all goods of 3 per cent. 1993, 2 per cent. 1994

  Philippines

  3-50

  No restrictions.

  Mexico

  5-20

  Certificate of origin and labelling requirements.

  Argentina

  15-20

  No restrictions.

  South Korea

  2-10

  No restrictions.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, columns 252-53, if he will publish a table showing the number of export licences (a) approved and (b) refused in each year since 1984 under the heading ML7, relating to military defence against biological agents.

  Mr. Needham
  Export licences(a) approved and (b) refused for goods under the heading ML7 from 1992 to 8 December 1993 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  (a)

  1992

  310

  1993

  206

  (b)

  1992

  2

  1993

  0

  ML7 is an entry in the Export of Goods (Control) Order which includes controls on biological agents themselves, as well as equipment for military defence against them. Records of export licences are kept for seven years. It would be possible for the precise information requested covering the period 1986 to date to be provided, but only at a disproportionate cost.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.
  487
  Mr. Eggar
  The annual cost in 1990–91 of the car service for Ministers was £223,966 (including VAT), for five cars.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responsibilities fall on British Nuclear Fuels to cover the full costs of application of(a) Euratom safeguards, (b) International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and (c) safeguards, pursuant to Cmnd 6730, at (i) the Magnox reprocessing line and (ii) the thermal oxide reprocessing line at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  In accordance with the Euratom treaty and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the costs of the application of safeguards by these two bodies are met through the contributions made to their budgets by their member states.

  Enforcement Agencies Code
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 738, on the publication of a code for enforcement agencies, what estimate he has made of the cost of publication by the agencies of their own codes of practice.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Deregulation Ministers are responsible for ensuring that enforcement agencies publish their own codes of practice setting out how they have met the principles in "Working with Business: a code for enforcement agencies". Therefore, it is for Departmental Deregulation Ministers to determine what resources should be devoted to publication of the codes of practice taking into account the size and nature of the business community with whom each of the enforcement agencies deal.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of public funding of the Atomic Energy Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Atomic Energy Authority operates as a trading fund and does not receive grant in aid from the Government. The Atomic Energy Authority currently has outstanding long-term borrowing from the national loans fund of £124·4 million. It is intended that the Atomic Energy Authority's borrowing should progressively decrease over the public expenditure planning period. In 1992–93 approximately £320 million of the Atomic Energy Authority's turnover came from work undertaken for Government Departments and other public sector organisations. Where practicable work for the Government is increasingly subject to competition in line with Government policy.

  Business Licences
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the business licence requirements which the Government have reviewed since 1990.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  All regulations affecting business, including licensing requirements are currently under review as part of the deregulation initiative. No information has been centrally collected on reviews of business licensing prior to the current exercise.

  Statistical Forms
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to identify the potential for limiting the burden of statistical form filling on business.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Government Departments are reviewing the forms they issue to business as part of their overall review of regulations which affect industry. The deregulation task forces have also been looking at how the burden of form filling can be reduced and have made a number of proposals which we are considering.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 3 December,Official Report, column 766, for what period of time the THORP receipt and storage pond at Sellafield has been designated for safeguards inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  No time scale has been set.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the level 4 uranium commissioning at THORP has been completed; and what modifications have been demanded by the nuclear installations inspectorate before commissioning can proceed to level 5.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: Progress on level 4 commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc. Level 5 commissioning can commence only if the new discharge authorisations for Sellafield are granted and the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate is satisfied as to its safety.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what economic costs expressed in net present value term were estimated by Touche Ross for a two-year delay in THORP to (i) the United Kingdom economy, (ii) BNFL and (iii) overseas customers.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 15 April 1993, Official Report, column 680.

  Departmental Office, Teesside
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to establish a permanent office of the DTI on Teesside.

  Mr. Eggar
  The DTI already has an office in Billingham.

  Tourism
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he intends to clarify the EC Package Travel Regulations for the United Kingdom tourist industry.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  All guidance issued by my Department is kept under review and we will be considering what revisions to make to the guidance notes on the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 in the light of recommendations from the retail, tourism and services deregulations task force.

  Frogs' Legs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantities and country of origin of frogs' legs imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is given in the following table.

  United Kingdom imports of frogs' legs

  (metric tonnes)

  Country of origin

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  France

  31·6

  8·6

  2·5

  5·6

  4·9

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  11·7

  10·1

  9·8

  8·6

  6·4

  Netherlands

  0·6

  6·4

  3·9

  4·7

  0·9

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·2

  Indonesia

  16·2

  11·4

  12·6

  10·2

  7·3

  Total

  60·2

  36·4

  28·7

  29·1

  22·8

  Note: Frogs' legs are classified as heading 012.92 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Accounts Services Agency
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much operating surplus has been surrendered by the Accounts Services Agency to the Exchequer each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will retain in the public sector the Accounts Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on 29 October,Official Report, column 805. The review of the Accounts Services Agency has yet to be concluded. In due course a decision will be taken and an announcement made.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will ensure that the Sizewell B nuclear power station will be provided with containment which is demonstrated to be no less effective than the containment provided for test explosions of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the consequences of a disruptive explosion of the reactor pressure vessel of the Sizewell B nuclear power station in terms of (a) the total value today of expected losses and (b) the total numbers of injuries and premature deaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  All aspects of the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor (PWR) design including the operational safety of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and containment building, and the possibility of the catastrophic failure of the RPV were carefully scrutinised by eminent independent assessors during the extensive public inquiry into the Sizewell B proposal. These matters are further re-examined at the public inquiry for Hinkley Point C when a similar design of PWR to that for Sizewell B was proposed. The conclusion of both inquiries was that the possibility of RPV explosion was extremely 490
  remote. Moreover, Sizewell B has been built to a very high technical standard and the independent Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate will not consent to its operation if they are not completely satisfied that it is safe to do so.

  Electricity
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total(a) value and (b) number of kilowatt hours of electricity supplied to the United Kingdom by Electricité de France in each year since such supplies commenced.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The net amount and value of electricity supplied to the United Kingdom from France has been as follows. Estimates of value since April 1990 are based on prevailing pool prices.

  Value £ million

  Volume TWh

  1986

  80

  4·3

  1987

  242

  11·6

  1988

  268

  12·8

  1989

  305

  12·6

  1990

  200

  11·9

  1991

  343

  16·4

  1992

  369

  16·7

  Source: United Kingdom Digest of Energy Statistics: 1993, tables 49 and 66; 1992, tables 48 and 65; 1991, tables 50 and 66.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what projections he has made of the(a) value and (b) volume of electricity which is expected to be imported from France in each of the next 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: A description of how trade across the interconnector with France was expected to develop in the foreseeable future was given in the Government's Coal Review White Paper (Cm. 2235), paragraphs 7.100 to 7.101.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make it his policy to cease to import electricity from France; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will commission an independent report into the total employment effect, implications for the balance of payments, and impact upon Exchequer revenues and social security spending which have occurred or which will occur in the future as a result of the importation of electricity from France.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The Government's policy towards trade in electricity across the interconnector was set out in chapter 7 of the Government's Coal Review White Paper (Cm. 2235).

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the percentage of electricity produced in each member country of the European Community from(a) nuclear, (b) coal, (c) gas, (d) orimulsion, (e) oil, (f) hydroelectric and (g) other powered generators.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The information requested is shown in the following table. Separate figures for orimulsion are not available.
  491

  Total Net Production of Electrical Energy in 1991

  Per cent

  Nuclear

  Coal

  Gas1

  Oi12

  Hydro-electricity3

  Other4

  Belgium

  59·7

  22·9

  12·4

  2·5

  1·4

  1·1

  Denmark

  —

  90·9

  2·4

  3·7

  2·3

  0·7

  Germany

  27·9

  56·6

  8·4

  2·7

  3·6

  0·9

  Greece

  —

  65·7

  0·3

  24·5

  9·6

  —

  Spain

  35·9

  37·1

  1·5

  6·4

  18·8

  0·4

  France

  72·7

  8·6

  1·4

  3·1

  14·0

  0·2

  Ireland

  —

  552·6

  24·7

  16·0

  6·7

  —

  Italy

  —

  12·7

  17·4

  46·5

  21·4

  2·1

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  38·8

  1·8

  56·8

  2·7

  Netherlands

  4·4

  30·6

  59·0

  4·6

  0·2

  1·4

  Portugal

  —

  32·3

  0·2

  33·3

  31·5

  2·7

  United Kingdom

  20·8

  65·2

  1·8

  9·5

  2·0

  0·8

  Source: Eurostat: Energy-Yearly Statistics

  1 includes both natural gas and derived gases such as coke oven gas and blast furnace gas.

  2 includes Orimulsion.

  3 includes production from pumped storage stations.

  4 includes wood, peat (except in Ireland), industrial residues and geothermal. 5 Irish figure includes peat.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of Electricité de France; and what was said at that meeting.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: I met the French Industry Minister, M. Longuet, in the summer. We discussed the liberalisation of the French energy market, opportunities for United Kingdom generators to export to and through France, and the levy-exempt status of Electricité de France's electricity exports to the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Forestry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the woods owned by the Forestry Commission in Wales are now for sale; which have been sold; and what is the amount of sales receipts so far.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The following areas of forest land in Wales are currently being offered for sale on the open market by the Forestry Commission.

  County

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Clwyd

  Nantyffrith

  111

  Dyfed

  Allt Cil y Llyn Fawr

  3

  Allt Crychdu

  18

  Allt Fawr

  7

  Allt Llwyn Dyfrion

  11

  Allt y Down/Allt Pant Lleuci

  16

  Allt y Fergwm

  23

  Bwlch Newydd

  8

  Bylchau Duon

  62

  Cefn Eithin

  5

  Cilfowyr

  3

  Cilgwyn Wood

  11

  Coed Cefn Pwll Hen

  20

  Coed Ffridd Cwmere

  20

  Court Wood

  19

  Cynheidre Uchaf

  24

  Fforest

  22

  Glanteifi

  3

  Havod Wood

  12

  Llwyn y Gwair

  14

  Lon Isaf

  7

  492

  County

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Maestwynog

  12

  Pencwm Fawr

  9

  Penhill Wood

  4

  Penrallt Ddu

  13

  Pont Eynon and Allt y Forlan

  29

  Pont Henri

  14

  Portis Pant

  30

  TY'r Shyme

  7

  Waun Baglan Woods

  26

  Gwent

  Craig y Merchant

  24

  Tyllys

  12

  Ty Fry Big Wood

  17

  Llandafal Wood

  10

  Gwynedd

  Code Ty Uchaf

  15

  Coed Dyfi

  17

  Glyn Estate

  49

  Powys

  Great Wood

  9

  Pwll Llydan

  31

  Tirabad

  2

  South Glamorgan

  Breach Wood

  9

  West Glamorgan

  Blaen y Cwm

  32

  Bryn Liefrith

  26

  Craig Ynysgollen

  10

  Gelligaer

  33

  Nant y Stalwyn

  44

  Tir y Gof

  47

  Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1992 are held in the Library of the House. A list of the forest land sold by the Commission in 1993 will be drawn up and placed in the Library of the House in the new year.

  The receipts from the sales of forest land in Wales from July 1981 to 31 March 1993 were £18 million.

  School Pupils
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1)if he will give a percentage breakdown of all subjects attempted at A-level during each of the last three years in English-medium schools in Wales, in Welsh-medium schools and in bilingual schools in Wales;
  493
  (2) what was the proportion of passes in each grade for each subject attempted at A-level during each of the last three years in English-medium schools in Wales, Welsh-medium schools and in bilingual schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information is not collected in the form requested. Maintained secondary schools are designated as either Welsh speaking or not under the Education Reform Act 1988. Tables giving information on the proportion of passes at each grade for A level and a percentage breakdown for each subject for Welsh speaking and non Welsh speaking schools for available years has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of children from(a) Welsh-medium schools, (b) English-medium schools and (c) bilingual schools went on to university; what proportion of those undertook to read mathematics or science; and if he will give comparable data for English-medium schools in Wales and bilingual schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available in the form requested. Maintained secondary schools are classified as either Welsh speaking or not Welsh speaking under the Education Reform Act 1988. In 1991–92, 25 per cent. of all pupils leaving Welsh speaking schools and 18 per cent. of those leaving schools not designated as Welsh speaking entered higher education institutions. Information is not collected on the subjects which pupils intend to study.

  Cormorants
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications his Department has received in the last 12 months for licences to control the number of cormorant on Welsh fisheries; and how many of these have been approved.

  Mr. Redwood
  Four applications have been received in the last 12 months; three have been rejected and one is under consideration.

  Crickhowell Bypass
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of financial commitment for the employment of consultants for the investigation into the Crickhowell bypass scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Some £593,000 has been expended since mid-1989 on fees and expenses to consultants employed for the two public consultations and the preparation of the necessary engineering, environmental, archaeological and town planning studies in connection with this scheme.

  All views expressed following the recent public consultation are being carefully considered before a decision is taken on whether or not to proceed with any of the published routes.

  Trawsfynydd
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will reverse the decision to allow Nuclear Electric plc to burn radioactive waste oil and other contaminated materials at Trawsfynydd; and if he will make a statement.
  494
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No, my right hon. Friend sees no grounds for doing so, especially as high temperature incineration is widely accepted to be the most suitable environmental option for this type of waste.

  Opencast Coal Mines
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy in respect of the construction of opencast coal mines in sites of special scientific interest, with particular reference to the proximity of national parks; what such proposals he has recently received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3, "Opencast Coal Mining", advises that opencast coal proposals in sites of special scientific interest or affecting national parks should be subject to a most rigorous examination. Currently there are no proposals before me for determination.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan(a) its land and (b) its area in hectares; and whether he will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 8 December 1993 at columns 237-238.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to place on the agenda of the European Union Heads of Government summit meeting in Brussels on 10 to 11 December the matter of nuclear reprocessing and plutonium stockpiles in the European Community.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  No.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the policy of the Child Support Agency in respect of payments to children whose fathers are dead.

  Mr. Burt
  Child support legislation is applicable only where there is an absent parent. Where a child's natural or adoptive father is dead, no application for child support maintenance can be made.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Hague
  Five vehicles were provided and the net cost, exclusive of VAT, was £209,989.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money families will receive in total in child benefit this year; and how much more would have been received if the number of children were the same as in 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that families will receive about £6 billion in total in child benefit in 1993–94 and that a further £500 million would have been received if the number of children were the same as in 1978–79.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what dates since 1978 there has been an announcement of change in the level of child benefit; when each change came into effect; and by which Minister each change was announced.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Announced by

  Date of announcement

  Effective date of change

  Secretary of State for Social Security1

  12 April 1978

  13 November 1978 and 2 April 1979

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  26 March 1980

  24 November 1980

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  11 March 1981

  23 November 1981

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  10 March 1982

  22 November 1982

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  23 June 1983

  21 November 1983

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  18 June 1984

  26 November 1984

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  18 June 1985

  25 November 1985

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  24 February 1986

  28 July 1986

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  22 October 1986

  6 April 1987

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  24 October 1990

  8 April 1991

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  19 March 1991

  7 October 1991

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  21 October 1991

  6 April 1992

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  21 November 1992

  12 April 1993

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  1 December 1993

  11 April 1994

  1Labour administration.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases to date have been considered by the Child Support Agency; how many and what percentage of those cases have resulted in the establishment of new financial support arrangements; and in how many and what percentage of those cases a court maintenance order was already in operation.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mrs. Ann Winterton, dated 10 December 1993:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking questions about the operations of the Child Support Agency.
  To 31 October 1993, the Agency has processed over 107,000 cases. Of these, 47,000 (44% of the total) have resulted in the arrangement of maintenance. Figures are not not kept on the proportion of these cases in which a court order for maintenance
  496
  was already in operation. We estimate, however, that about 50% of cases taken on by 31 October were already receiving maintenance.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the planned changes to incapacity benefit will affect the entitlements of patients who suffer from severe heart conditions and strokes.

  Mr. Scott
  A new, more objective, medical test of incapacity for work will apply to claims for incapacity benefit. The new test will assess, on a case-by-case basis, the incapacitating nature of a condition or combinations of conditions on the ability to work. Specific medical conditions such as strokes can have a wide range of effects from severe to very mild. We expect that those with more severe conditions would satisfy the test.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider reintroducing earnings-related unemployment benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government have no plans to reintroduce earnings-related unemployment benefit.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 35, which company arranges travel for his officials; and what form bills take if records are kept by mode of travel only.

  Mr. Hague
  Wagon-Lits Travel Ltd. is the approved contractor for business travel by officials of the Department. The company presents its bills in two forms. Each month, a list of all travel transactions is provided in invoice date order together with cost centre analyses of individual expenditure for internal accounting purposes.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions and at what cost to public funds officials have visited his private residence in France.

  Mr. Hague
  Department of Social Security officials have visited the house of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in France on one occasion. The cost of the visit was £449·24.

  Family Credit
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a table showing the number of families receiving family credit per week of(a) less than £100, (b) between £100 and £120, (c) between £120 and £140, (d) between £140 and £150, (e) between £150 and £160, (f) between £160 and £180, (g) between £180 and £200, (h) between £200 and £250 and (i) over £300; and in each category how many he expects will gain (i) nothing, (ii) between £0 and £10, (iii) between £10 and £20 and (iv) between £20 and £28 as a result of the proposed changes announced in the Budget statement relating to family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table:
  497

  Family credit recipients

  All cases

  Total

  486,720

  Under £100

  480,520

  £100 to £119·99

  4,620

  £120 to £139·99

  1,300

  £140 to £149·99

  180

  £150 to £159·99

  80

  £160 to £179·99

  20

  Note: Awards of Family Credit current at 30 April 1993, analysed by amount of Family Credit in payment. Based on 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the number of families receiving family credit which he expects will gain(a) nothing, (b) between £0 and £10, (c) between £10 and £20 and (d) between £20 and £28 as a result of the proposed changes announced in the Budget statement relating to family credit;

  (2) how many families he expects to benefit from the change in rules announced in the Budget statement relating to family credit.

  (3) how many more families he expects will be entitled to family credit as a result of the change in rules announced in the Budget statement relating to family credit; and how many of these he expects to gain (a) the full £28 and (b) less than £28.

  Mr. Burt
  We estimate that the assistance with child care costs will give substantial help to 150,000 families. A total of 80,000 families already on family credit will benefit and 20,000 at present just outside the family credit scheme will become entitled. We estimate that 50,000 families presently on income support will be enabled to take up work as a result of the change.

  The amount of increase in the family credit award for those already receiving the benefit will be related to the actual child care costs up to a maximum of £40 which they incur.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families receiving family credit have(a) two parents with (i) one child, (ii) two children, (iii) three children and (iv) four children or more and (b) one parent with (i) one child, (ii) two children, (iii) three children and (iv) four children or more; and if he will estimate how many in each category will gain (1) nothing, (2) between £0 to £10, (3) between £10 to £20 and (4) between £20 to £28 as a result of the proposed changes to family credit announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  Family credit recipients

  Couples

  Singles

  All cases

  With one child

  72,220

  106,240

  178,460

  With two children

  106,700

  71,840

  178,540

  With three children

  64,040

  21,460

  85,500

  With four or more children

  37,880

  6,340

  44,220

  Total

  280,840

  205,880

  486,720

  Note: Awards of family credit current at 30 April 1993, analysed by family size and type. Based on 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons without accommodation claimed income support in the Newbury constituency in each month between December 1992 and November 1993.

  Mr. Burt
  I am informed by Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Care
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families receiving family credit currently make child care arrangements by(a) child minding, (b) playgroups, (c) workplace nurseries, (d) nurseries and (e) a nanny; and what information he has on the costs of each type of arrangement.

  Mr. Burt
  Information about the child care arrangements of families receiving family credit is not available. Information about families in general is in the tables and further elaborated in the sources quoted, copies of which are in the Library.

  Weekly cost of child care

  Working parents group

  Percentage that pay

  Average weekly cost £

  All working parents

  23

  30·70

  Working couples

  22

  32·40

  Working lone parents

  29

  24·60

  Low income working lone parents

  Percentage that pay

  Average weekly cost £

  Lone parents

  19

  N/a

  Lone parents working full-time

  27

  21·50

  N/a—Not available.

  Cost of professional1 child care All working parents

  Type of care used

  Average weekly cost £

  Professional care as sole method

  42·40

  Two methods of child care, professional/non-professional

  30·00

  1"Professional"—not care provided by friends and relatives.

  Sources:

  PSI reports—Families, Work and the Use of Childcare (Employment Gazette, August 1993.)

  Families, Work and Benefits (September 1993).

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Policing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what is the annual amount paid by the House of Commons administration for the supply of police cover.
  499
  Mr. Beith
  The estimate for the provision of security services to the House of Commons in the current financial year is £9·82 million—a figure which the hon. Member will find on page 7 of the Commission's annual report, published earlier this year.

  Health and Safety Training
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what representations he has received about health and safety training for staff of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Beith
  Since last May I have replied to five questions tabled on this and similar issues related to health and safety. I have received no other representations. A number of training schemes have been organised by House Departments or are in prospect.

  European Legislation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the arrangements for considering EC legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Recesses
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will give the figures for the total lengths of recesses in each parliamentary Session since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

  The table sets out sitting and non-sitting days since 1979.

  Sitting and non-sitting days since 1979 (Calendar years)

  Sitting days

  Non-sitting days

  1979

  146

  1107

  1980

  173

  81

  1981

  177

  76

  1982

  175

  78

  1983

  154

  199

  1984

  171

  83

  1985

  171

  82

  1986

  166

  87

  1987

  150

  1103

  1988

  173

  81

  1989

  176

  77

  1990

  176

  77

  1991

  165

  88

  1992

  148

  1106

  1993

  165

  88

  Average

  166

  88

  1 General election year.

  Sitting days (By session)

  Number of days

  1979–80

  244

  1980–81

  163

  1981–82

  174

  500

  Number of days

  1982–83

  115

  1983–84

  213

  1984–85

  172

  1985–86

  172

  1986–87

  109

  1987–88

  218

  1988–89

  175

  1989–90

  167

  1990–91

  160

  1991–92

  83

  1992–93

  240

  Average

  172

  Note: It is assumed that weekends and bank holidays account for 112 days each year.

  Motions and Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to allow hon. Members to table early-day motions and written questions during the parliamentary recesses.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so but the hon. Member may in the first instance wish to put his suggestions to the Procedure Committee.

  Sitting Days
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the number of days that the House sat in each parliamentary Session since 1979; and the number of days that the House was in recess.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

  Mice
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how much has been spent on the attempts to eradicate the presence of mice from the public rooms of the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Director of Works; I shall ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Chairs
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the cost of putting out and removing chairs within the precincts of the House of Commons; and how many contractors there are.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Director of Works.

  Dining Rooms (Standards of Dress)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what representations have been received concerning standards of dress in the Strangers' Dining Room and Churchill Room.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  Numerous complaints have been received from hon. Members concerning the standards of dress of a few users of the Strangers Dining Room and the
  501
  Churchill Room. The Catering Committee considered this matter at its meeting on 16 June and laid down the following dress code to be observed by gentleman Members and male guests in these two dining rooms:

  Jackets to be worn except in unbearably hot weather.

  Ties to be worn at all times.

  No jeans to be worn.

  Visitors' Facilities
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will list the facilities available to visitors to the House(a) when the House is sitting and (b) when the House is in recess; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Martin
  A detailed description of the facilities available for visitors to the House on sitting and non-sitting days is contained in various leaflets issued by the Serjeant of Arms, and principally that entitled "Regulations for Visitors". These leaflets are reprinted in the Members' handbook.

  Strangers Gallery
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has plans to increase the number of seats available to members of the public in the Strangers' Gallery.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  There are no such plans at present. However, the hon. Member may wish to write to me with any specific point of concern he has about the Strangers Gallery.

  Fire Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee when was the last time the Houses of Parliament received a fire certificate; what have been the reasons for refusals since; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  A fire certificate was last issued to the Houses of Parliament in 1969. Since then no certificate has been applied for or refused. A programme of work on fire precautionary measures is progressing in order that a new certificate may be issued in the coming year.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what happens to the VAT reclaimed by the Fees Office on items of expenditure paid for by hon. Members from the office costs allowance.

  Mr. Newton
  The Fees Office do not reclaim VAT paid by hon. Members on expenditure paid by them from their office costs allowance.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement regarding the long-term future of HLCA grants.

  Mr. Jack
  The terms and conditions of hill livestock compensatory allowances will continue to be reviewed annually in the context of the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands.

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will show the number of badgers shot and gassed in each of the last three years in each county in the south-west region; and how many of these badgers were subsequently shown to have tuberculosis.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of badgers shot in the year to date and in the previous three years in each county in the south-west of England, and the numbers of badgers that were subsequently shown to be positive for tuberculosis—M. bovis—are as follows. Gassing has not been used as a means of controlling badgers since 1982.

  1990

  Number shot

  Number positive for M.bovis

  Avon

  55

  13

  Cornwall

  385

  63

  Devon

  188

  45

  Dorset

  7

  2

  Gloucester

  109

  27

  Somerset

  17

  —

  Wiltshire

  3

  —

  TOTALS

  764

  150

  19·6 per cent.

  1991

  Number shot

  Number positive for M.bovis

  Avon

  55

  17

  Cornwall

  422

  75

  Devon

  159

  20

  Dorset

  49

  2

  Gloucester

  75

  12

  Somerset

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  178

  34

  TOTALS

  938

  160

  17 per cent.

  1992

  Number shot

  Number positive for M.bovis

  Avon

  159

  38

  Cornwall

  470

  68

  Devon

  162

  35

  Dorset

  —

  —

  Gloucester

  96

  38

  Somerset

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  141

  30

  TOTALS

  1,028

  209

  20·3 per cent.

  19931

  Number shot

  Number positive for M.bovis

  Number of results awaited

  Avon

  118

  24

  3

  Cornwall

  330

  63

  22

  Devon

  119

  33

  29

  Dorset

  49

  8

  —

  503

  Number shot

  Number positive for M.bovis

  Number of results awaited

  Gloucester

  119

  31

  25

  Somerset

  125

  48

  5

  Wiltshire

  125

  28

  39

  TOTALS

  985

  235

  123

  23·8 per cent.

  1 1January to 6 December 1993.

  Agriculture Tenancies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she has to retain the 15-year minimum fixed term for agriculture tenancy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  A statutory minimum term has never featured in our proposals for tenancy reform; nor is it included in the common position agreed by industry organisations last week.

  In the light of that agreement, we shall be going ahead with all the necessary steps so that we shall be ready to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what spending she plans following the allocation made to her Department in the Budget directly in 1994–95 on(a) sea defence and coast protection, (b) inland drainage and flood protection and (c) supporting the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested on 1994–95 spending plans is as follows:

  £ million

  Grants to the National Rivers Authority sea defence, inland drainage and flood protection

  38·4

  Grants to local authorities coast protection

  26·6

  sea defence, inland drainage and flood protection

  2·1

  Grants to Internal Drainage Boards inland drainage and flood protection

  1·0

  Supporting the Common Fisheries Policy (including market support, degressive withdrawal scheme and flat rate aid scheme)

  2·0

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will include Forestry Commission woods in Nottinghamshire in her list of commission land in England for which there is no question of privatisation;

  (2) if she will list all those Forestry Commission landholdings in England for which there will be no question of privatisation.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: Forestry Ministers have asked the forestry review group to review options for the ownership and management of
  504
  Forestry Commission woodlands, and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and envrionmental policies.

  We will await the advice of the review group before considering what further action, if any, should be taken in respect of the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans she has to take into account the views of local people, organisations and local authorities in England when deciding which areas of Forestry Commission land will not be privatised;

  (2) what account she takes of the views of local people when confirming that there is no question of privatising particular areas of Forestry Commission land in England.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: About 3,000 individuals and 300 organisations have already written to Ministers and the forestry review group, setting out their views. The group is taking full account of these as it prepares its report.

  There will be full consultation of the general public and interested bodies on the options preferred by Ministers before matters are taken forward. The form and timing of consultation will depend on the advice which the review group offers Ministers and what conclusions Ministers draw from that advice.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Hereford and Worcester, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and if she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire:

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Cheshire

  948

  Cumbria

  26,508

  Lancashire

  1,816

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

EMPLOYMENT

  Enterprise Allowances
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many enterprise allowances were granted in each training and enterprise council area and in each standard region in the 1992–93 financial year; in how many such cases the term of the allowance was completed; and in how many cases the enterprise allowance resulted in the continuation of a business after completion.
  505
  Miss Widdecombe
  The business start-up scheme replaced the enterprise allowance scheme in April 1991. Table 1 gives the number of business start-up scheme starts in 1992–93 for each training and enterprise council—TEC —and region in England and Wales.

  Information about whether the period of allowances was completed is not held centrally.

  Information on the continuation of business is not available for individual TECs, but is available regionally from special surveys. The latest figures cover starts in April and May 1991 which were still in business 18 months later in November 1992. These are shown in table 2.

  Table 1

  BSUS: Cumulative starts by TEC 1992–93

  Numbers

  Hampshire

  1,160

  Heart of England

  130

  Isle of Wight

  100

  Kent

  820

  Milton Keynes

  130

  Surrey

  270

  Sussex

  300

  Thames Valley

  450

  REGION TOTAL

  3,370

  AZTEC

  340

  North London

  430

  North West London

  230

  CILNTEC

  440

  Central London

  400

  London East

  310

  SOLOTEC

  680

  West London

  350

  South Thames

  550

  REGION TOTAL

  3,730

  Bedfordshire

  180

  Central and South Cambridgeshire

  180

  Greater Peterborough

  150

  Suffolk

  460

  Norfolk and Waveney

  690

  Essex

  380

  Hertfordshire

  430

  REGION TOTAL

  2,460

  Avon

  320

  Devon/Cornwall

  1,510

  Dorset

  320

  Gloucester

  690

  Somerset

  200

  Wiltshire

  560

  REGION TOTAL

  3,600

  Birmingham

  840

  Central England

  430

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  660

  Dudley

  210

  Hereford and Worcester

  350

  Sandwell

  210

  Shropshire

  280

  Staffordshire

  500

  Walsall

  140

  Wolverhampton

  240

  REGION TOTAL

  3,830

  North Derbyshire

  290

  South Derbyshire

  400

  Leicestershire

  1,020

  Lincolnshire

  610

  Northamptonshire

  380

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  700

  506

  Numbers

  North Nottinghamshire

  440

  REGION TOTAL

  3,830

  Brad ford

  570

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  380

  Humberside

  750

  Leeds

  540

  Rotherham

  300

  Sheffield

  600

  Wakefield

  200

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  780

  North Yorkshire

  980

  REGION TOTAL

  5,100

  Bolton/Bury

  350

  Rochdale

  110

  Stockport/High Peak

  330

  Wigan

  300

  Oldham

  150

  South and East Cheshire

  180

  Central Manchester

  1,020

  REGION TOTAL

  2,440

  North Cheshire

  400

  Merseyside

  1,140

  Cumbria

  350

  East Lancashire

  440

  West Lancashire

  380

  CEWTEC (Cheshire/Wirral)

  480

  QUALITEC (St. Helens)

  220

  REGION TOTAL

  3,410

  County Durham

  570

  Northumberland

  250

  Teesside

  510

  Tyneside

  390

  Wearside

  170

  REGION TOTAL

  1,890

  Gwent

  450

  Mid. Glamorgan

  370

  North East Wales

  170

  North West Wales

  400

  Powys

  190

  South Glamorgan

  300

  West Wales

  800

  REGION TOTAL

  2,680

  Source: TEC Operating Agreement (Annex J) and Welsh Office MIS.
  Note: The sum of TEC total will not necessarily add up to regional totals due to independent rounding.

  Table 2

  BSUS: 18 month business survival rates for starts in April and May 1991 by region

  Survival rates1 (per cent.)

  South East

  73

  London

  71

  South West

  70

  Eastern2

  72

  East Midlands2

  West Midlands

  72

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  72

  Greater Manchester

  68

  North West

  69

  Northern

  76

  Wales

  74

  507
  1 November 1992 survey of people who started in April/May 1991 and were still in business 18 months later.

  2 Due to small sample sizes a combined survival rate is given for the Eastern and East Midlands regions.

  Source: The November 1992 Business Start-Up Scheme 18 Month Follow-Up Survey.

  Unemployed People (Training)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people unemployed for over six months each Employment Service regional office has referred to providers of training each month since January.

  By each employment service region, percentage of people unemployed for over six months referred to training providers by month from January to October 1993

  Northern

  Yorks. and Humber.

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  January

  2·9

  3·1

  2·1

  2·0

  1·8

  3·0

  2·4

  2·9

  2·7

  February

  2·7

  2·6

  2·0

  1·9

  1·6

  2·6

  2·2

  2·6

  2·6

  March

  2·2

  2·1

  1·6

  1·5

  1·1

  1·7

  1·9

  2·0

  2·0

  April

  2·6

  2·4

  1·6

  1·4

  2·1

  1·9

  1·9

  1·8

  1·8

  May

  2·4

  2·2

  1·5

  1·5

  1·9

  1·7

  1·9

  1·7

  1·8

  June

  2·3

  2·2

  1·6

  1·5

  1·9

  1·7

  1·8

  2·0

  2·0

  July

  2·9

  2·7

  2·1

  1·8

  2·6

  2·2

  2·2

  2·4

  2·6

  August

  2·2

  2·3

  1·8

  1·6

  2·1

  1·7

  1·9

  2·0

  2·2

  September

  2·3

  2·1

  1·7

  1·5

  2·0

  2·5

  2·0

  1·9

  2·4

  October

  3·2

  2·0

  2·2

  2·0

  2·6

  2·2

  2·4

  2·6

  2·9

  Sources: 1. Employment Service

  2. NOMIS.

  Note:—Training For Work replaced Employment Training and Employment Action in April of this year. The figures for January-March 1993 are the recorded referrals to Employment Training and Employment Action.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy in respect of the surplus revenue over expenditure which is being held by training and enterprise councils.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils —TECs—need reserves to protect the viability of their businesses. Beyond that, TECs are required to use their efficiency savings to further the objectives of their corporate plans and business plans. I know that many TECs have plans for spending their reserves effectively.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Cash terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Real terms

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  +/- Percent.

  £ million

  £ million

  +/- Per cent.

  Hampshire

  32·00

  34·13

  32·87

  2·71

  35·63

  33·23

  1·11

  Heart of England

  10·50

  12·18

  11·73

  11·71

  11·89

  11·09

  -5·49

  Isle of Wight

  4·30

  4·26

  4·10

  -4·59

  4·34

  4·04

  -1·44

  Kent

  31·60

  35·13

  33·83

  7·06

  39·36

  36·71

  8·51

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  7·10

  8·04

  7·74

  9·05

  10·12

  9·44

  21·96

  Surrey

  13·0

  13·83

  13·32

  0·14

  14·07

  13·13

  -1·44

  Sussex

  24·20

  27·16

  26·16

  8·08

  26·95

  25·13

  -3·91

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  19·60

  21·21

  20·43

  4·21

  27·45

  25·60

  25·34

  AZTEC

  11·10

  11·73

  11·30

  1·77

  14·45

  13·47

  19·29

  CENTEC

  12·70

  24·24

  23·34

  83·81

  28·58

  26·66

  14·20

  CILNTEC

  9·10

  22·62

  21·78

  139·38

  27·06

  25·24

  15·87

  LETEC

  28·70

  35·90

  34·57

  20·46

  44·42

  41·43

  19·83

  North London

  10·40

  18·92

  18·22

  75·20

  21·98

  20·50

  12·54

  508
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 13 December 1993.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about referrals to providers of training.
  The information you requested is set out in the attached table.
  I should explain that people who are unemployed for six months are interviewed by a Client Adviser (and at six month intervals thereafter should they remain unemployed). At this interview their employment needs are discussed with a view to helping them back to work by agreeing a referral to a job, training or other suitable opportunity, e.g. a Jobclub.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much funding has been made available to each training and enterprise council each year, expressed in cash and real terms using prices from the first year's funding and as a real terms percentage increase or decrease on the previous year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Funding made available to each training and enterprise council by the Department for the last three years, expressed in cash terms and real terms using prices from the first year's funding and as a real term percentage increase or decrease on the previous year, is shown in the following table:
  509

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Cash terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Real terms

  £million

  £ million

  £ million

  +/-Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  +/-Per cent.

  North West London

  5·80

  10·03

  9·66

  66·54

  13·8

  12·57

  30·17

  SOLOTEC

  18·90

  20·12

  19·38

  2·52

  21·94

  20·47

  5·63

  South Thames

  22·10

  32·92

  31·70

  43·45

  44·06

  41·10

  29·63

  West London

  9·80

  17·27

  16·63

  69·71

  19·79

  18·46

  10·97

  Bedfordshire

  12·60

  11·72

  11·29

  -10·42

  13·40

  12·49

  10·70

  Cambridgeshire

  6·60

  6·37

  6·13

  -7·05

  7·87

  7·34

  19·58

  Essex

  28·50

  35·49

  34·18

  19·92

  35·10

  32·74

  -4·21

  Greater Peterborough

  8·40

  9·30

  8·96

  6·62

  11·06

  10·31

  15·17

  Hertfordshire

  19·20

  24·81

  23·89

  24·44

  26·16

  24·40

  2·10

  Norfolk/Waveney

  23·90

  22·57

  21·74

  -9·06

  25·84

  24·10

  10·90

  Suffolk

  14·70

  15·54

  14·97

  1·81

  16·93

  15·79

  5·49

  Avon

  28·60

  28·84

  27·77

  -2·89

  32·21

  30·04

  8·18

  Devon/Cornwall

  52·50

  52·47

  50·53

  -3·75

  59·32

  55·33

  9·50

  Dorset

  15·20

  16·53

  15·92

  4·73

  19·28

  17·98

  12·97

  Gloucestershire

  12·80

  13·92

  13·41

  4·73

  15·21

  14·19

  5·85

  Somerset

  12·50

  13·75

  13·24

  5·93

  14·08

  13·13

  -0·84

  Wiltshire

  12·30

  14·66

  14·12

  14·78

  15·90

  14·83

  5·04

  Birmingham

  46·70

  49·77

  47·93

  2·63

  48·99

  45·69

  -4·67

  Central England

  10·90

  11·71

  11·28

  3·46

  11·81

  11·01

  -2·34

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  26·20

  25·38

  24·44

  -6·71

  30·91

  28·83

  17·95

  Dudley

  11·20

  11·72

  11·29

  0·77

  12·92

  12·05

  6·77

  HAWTEC

  10·30

  11·81

  11·37

  10·42

  13·64

  12·72

  11·86

  Sandwell

  11·40

  11·99

  11·55

  1·29

  13·44

  12·53

  8·56

  Shropshire

  13·40

  14·68

  14·14

  5·50

  14·91

  13·91

  -1·61

  Staffordshire

  34·00

  35·60

  34·28

  0·83

  37·66

  35·12

  2·44

  Walsall

  10·60

  9·99

  9·62

  -9·24

  10·52

  9·81

  1·96

  Wolverhampton

  11·50

  12·12

  11·67

  1·49

  12·52

  11·68

  0·04

  Greater Nottingham

  20·90

  20·98

  20·20

  -3·33

  24·36

  22·72

  12·47

  Leicester

  25·40

  26·21

  25·24

  -0·63

  27·05

  25·23

  -0·05

  Lincolnshire

  19·20

  20·70

  19·93

  3·83

  26·89

  25·08

  25·80

  North Derbyshire

  11·20

  10·58

  10·19

  -9·03

  11·96

  11·16

  9·51

  North Nottinghamshire

  17·50

  17·12

  16·49

  -5·79

  17·58

  16·40

  -0·53

  Northamptonshire

  12·80

  13·76

  13·25

  3·53

  14·45

  13·48

  1·72

  South Derbyshire

  17·80

  18·33

  17·65

  -0·83

  19·20

  17·91

  1·47

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  27·30

  25·08

  24·15

  -11·53

  31·21

  29·11

  20·52

  Bradford and District

  19·20

  20·75

  19·98

  4·08

  22·21

  20·71

  3·66

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  21·40

  21·39

  20·60

  -3·74

  29·15

  27·19

  32·00

  Humberside

  37·60

  37·77

  36·77

  -3·26

  39·68

  37·01

  1·76

  Leeds

  22·50

  21·34

  20·55

  -8·66

  25·41

  23·70

  15·33

  North Yorkshire

  17·40

  17·56

  16·91

  -2·81

  18·75

  17·49

  3·42

  Rotherham

  12·50

  12·54

  12·08

  -3·39

  13·96

  13·02

  7·78

  Sheffield

  25·70

  23·38

  22·52

  -12·39

  28·77

  26·83

  19·16

  Wakefield

  12·60

  12·54

  12·08

  -4·16

  14·05

  13·10

  8·51

  Bolton/Bury

  13·50

  14·38

  13·85

  2·58

  15·89

  14·82

  7·04

  Manchester

  39·10

  39·31

  37·86

  -3·18

  42·58

  39·71

  4·91

  METROTEC

  12·00

  11·29

  10·87

  -9·39

  12·13

  11·31

  4·03

  Oldham

  9·10

  9·19

  8·85

  -2·74

  9·80

  9·14

  3·30

  Rochdale

  7·80

  8·87

  8·54

  9·51

  10·32

  9·63

  12·72

  South and East Cheshire

  11·10

  12·83

  12·36

  11·31

  15·27

  14·25

  15·29

  Stockport

  9·90

  10·47

  10·08

  1·85

  11·86

  11·06

  9·72

  CEWTEC

  22·30

  20·96

  20·19

  -9·48

  24·75

  23·09

  14·37

  Cumbria

  18·60

  17·68

  17·03

  -8·46

  18·82

  17·56

  3·11

  ELTEC

  18·00

  18·80

  18·10

  0·58

  21·85

  20·38

  12·58

  LAWTEC

  26·80

  28·35

  27·30

  1·87

  31·51

  29·39

  7·64

  Merseyside

  40·10

  51·00

  49·11

  22·48

  64·80

  60·44

  23·06

  NORMID

  11·82

  14·57

  14·03

  18·71

  16·32

  15·22

  8·48

  QUALITEC

  9·60

  9·83

  9·47

  -1·39

  11·89

  11·09

  17·19

  Durham

  34·70

  30·09

  28·98

  -16·49

  33·52

  31·27

  7·90

  Northumberland

  15·30

  15·28

  14·72

  -3·82

  16·72

  15·60

  5·98

  Teeside

  35·50

  33·48

  32·24

  -9·18

  38·19

  35·62

  10·47

  Tyneside

  45·80

  40·45

  38·95

  -14·95

  49·47

  46·15

  18·46

  Wearside

  21·40

  18·47

  17·79

  -16·88

  22·61

  21·09

  18·55

  510 511
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria determine the amount of funding for individual training and enterprise councils.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A training and enterprise council —TEC—negotiates with the Employment Department for the allocation of funds for training programmes based on its business plans for the year. When allocating funds, the Department takes account of a range of factors, including the quality of training to be provided, the balance of training between occupations, the expected demand for places by unemployed people, and contributions from employers towards the cost of training. The Department will also take efficiency savings made by a TEC into account when negotiating prices for training.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a list of the directors of each training and enterprise council and the companies or organisations they represent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Yes. I am doing so for all training and enterprise councils— TECs—in England. Information for the TECs in Wales is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to supply.

  Directors of TECs are chosen to represent the range and diversity of the local labour market and not a particular company or organisation.

  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as this has been done.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total budget for training and enterprise councils in England and Wales for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The budget for training and enterprise councils—TECs—in England for 1992–93 was £1·536 million. The total budget for 1993–94 is £1·738 million, including allowance payments for training and work participants, excluded from the 1992–93 budget.

  Details of TEC budgets in 1994–95 will not be known until contract negotiations with councils are finalised in the spring of 1994.

  Budget information relating to Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Training Allowances
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds in (i) Dundee and (ii) Scotland were in receipt of a bridging allowance at the latest available date and on that corresponding date in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyt
  h: 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 Mr. John McAllion, dated 13 December 1993.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about bridging allowance.
  The information you have requested, taking 16 year olds and 17 year olds together, is provided in the attached table. Unfortunately, a breakdown by age is not available, nor is the November 1988 figure for Dundee.
  512
  Bridging Allowance can be paid to young people as long as they are registered at a Careers Office for Youth Training (YT) and have left or lost a job or YT place.
  It is a short-term allowance paid for up to 40 days in any 52 week period while a young person finds another job or YT place.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Numbers in receipt of Bridging Allowance in Dundee and Scotland November 1988—November 1993

  November

  Dundee

  Scotland

  1988

  —

  2,102

  1989

  37

  1,157

  1990

  54

  1,349

  1991

  34

  1,099

  1992

  34

  957

  1993

  17

  553

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the training allowance paid to(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds on YTS and YT schemes in each of the past five years; and what the current allowance would be if it had been uprated in line with inflation over those five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The training allowances over each of the last five years have been £29·50 per week for 16-year-olds and £35 per week for 17-year-olds. The value of these allowance if they had been uprated in line with inflation is shown in the table:

  Allowance levels

  Year

  16-year-old £

  17-year-old £

  1989–90

  29·50

  35·00

  1990–91

  31·88

  37·82

  1991–92

  33·90

  40·22

  1992–93

  35·20

  41·76

  1993–94

  36·34

  43·12

  Transexuals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 explicitly to include discrimination against transexuals; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government deplore all forms of discrimination. It is not persuaded, however, that the Sex Discrimination Act should be extended to cover discrimination against transexuals and has no plans to legislate in this area.

  Education Allowance
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are presently on full-time vocational courses as a result of the education allowance introduced in the Budget statement of 16 March 1993,Official Report, column 193.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 11 November, the last date for which figures are available, approximately 6,200 people were participating in learning for work.

  Community Action Programme
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are engaged in part-time work under the community action programme.
  513
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 13 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of people engaged in part-time work under the Community Action programme.
  It may help if I explain the background to Community Action and our plans for the provision of the announced places.
  Community Action is a programme to help long-term unemployed people back into work, by providing work experience on projects of benefit to local communities. Following the Budget, a further 35,000 opportunities will be made available between now and 1995/6 in addition to the 60,000 announced last Spring.
  Community Action opportunities are being delivered, in the main, by voluntary/charitable organisations and my people in the Employment Service Regional Offices are responsible for contracting with them. At 26 November, the latest date for which figures are available, 2,876 places had been taken up by long term unemployed people and numbers are increasing steadily. The programme is planned to build to 20,000 filled places by the end of 1994.
  I hope this is helpful.

SCOTLAND

  Young People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 16 and 17-year-olds there were in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Estimated population aged 16 and 17

  Dundee City District

  Scotland

  16

  17

  16-17

  16

  17

  16-17

  1988

  2,511

  2,692

  5,203

  76,813

  81,292

  158,105

  1989

  2,211

  2,492

  4,703

  71,291

  76,069

  147,360

  1990

  2,088

  2,215

  4,303

  66,248

  70,849

  137,097

  1991

  2,012

  2,033

  4,045

  64,501

  65,750

  130,251

  1992

  1,978

  2,048

  4,026

  63,397

  64,338

  127,735

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about Ayrshire and Arran health board's plans for the closure of Ravenspark hospital in the longer term; and what actions the health board has been undertaking to safeguard the interests of hospital patients.

  Mr. Stewart
  For some time it has been the publicly declared intention of Ayrshire and Arran health board to replace facilities at Ravenspark in early 1995.

  The contract for the care of the present residents at Ravenspark hospital has been awarded to the Ayrshire and Arran community health care NHS trust and this contract is monitored by the health board.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made by the Scottish Office of the costs involved in establishing the NHS trusts in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the costs involved in setting up the south Ayrshire NHS Trust, the Community Health Care NHS Trust and the north Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 6 December 1993,Official Report, column 77. Already the evidence emerging from NHS trusts in Scotland is of more patients being treated, improved facilities and services better adapted to patient needs. This is very promising and I am sure that the general public in Ayrshire, as elsewhere, will want to encourage trusts in their endeavours to further improve patient care.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement about the guidelines which he has drawn up for Scottish Homes in carrying out the transfer of its housing stock, with particular reference to transfer of Scottish Homes properties to local authority control;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the transfer of Scottish Homes properties in Ayrshire; what point the transfer process has reached in Ayrshire; and what is the time scale within which the disposal process will be completed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has issued guidance to Scottish Homes on the voluntary disposal of its housing stock. This has been taken into account by Scottish Homes in its published procedures which promote substantial safeguards for tenants. All transfer proposals must have the agreement of tenants and are subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend who will be willing to consider a recommendation for a disposal to a local authority where Scottish Homes takes the view that there will be special circumstances such that the disposal would not compromise Ministers' and Scottish Homes' objective of promoting diversity of choice in rented housing. It is expected that such circumstances will rarely arise.

  Scottish Homes is currently preparing a local stock strategy which will address the transfer of its stock in Ayrshire. Tenants will be fully consulted on specific proposals and transfers will take place at a pace consistent with tenants wishes.

  Forestry
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects the work of the interdepartmental review group on the Forestry Commission will be completed and a report made to Ministers.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Ministers expect the Forestry review group to present its advice to them early next year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the initiatives the Scottish Office is pursuing to tackle the problem of homelessness amongst young people in Scotland, with particular reference to Ayrshire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Housing authorities have the statutory re
  sponsibility for dealing with homelessness. On 1 December I announced £4·35 million extra resources for expenditure on 36 homelessness projects by housing authorities in 1993–94, including £0·456 million for authorities in Ayrshire. Nearly £23 million had already been made available in financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93, including almost £1·83 million for Ayrshire authorities. Many projects supported by those extra resources are for young single homeless.

  These extra allocations are in addition to the substantial resources already allocated to housing authorities for investment in public and private housing—£513 million in 1993–94. All local housing authorities have been asked in their housing plans and housing capital programmes to set out strategies and targets for tackling homelessness in their areas.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Lang
  The cost to the Scottish Office of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91 was £212,286. The number of vehicles involved was three in London and four —part-time—in Scotland.

  New Towns
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the representations he has received from Scottish and Ayrshire Enterprise as regards his decision to consult on the early wind-up of Irvine new town; and if he will indicate which bodies supported amending the wind-up proposals.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Enterprise and Enterprise Ayrshire welcomed the proposals for early transfer of

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Housing

  Cumbernauld

  Target

  6·100

  5·500

  7·600

  5·582

  6·574

  6·523

  Receipts

  8·587

  5·500

  10·557

  9·774

  7·099

  4·617

  East Kilbride

  Target

  10·455

  17·135

  13·955

  8·500

  7·055

  12·066

  Receipts

  10·933

  18·742

  15·313

  11·208

  7·567

  5·920

  Glenrothes

  Target

  2·867

  4·251

  7·100

  5·180

  5·180

  9·824

  Receipts

  4·226

  7·314

  10·134

  6·809

  6·225

  9·316

  Irvine

  Target

  1·631

  3·776

  4·186

  4·362

  4·000

  2·800

  Receipts

  3·419

  4·811

  3·506

  3·750

  2·477

  2·142

  Livingston

  Target

  3·750

  7·346

  9·450

  4·659

  5·617

  7·157

  Receipts

  6·750

  10·316

  7·142

  4·094

  4·433

  6·210

  516
  responsibility for economic development within Irvine. Both organisations recognise that a smooth transition is desirable and discussions to achieve this are underway.

  Of the other bodies consulted, Strathclyde regional council expressed opposition to the proposals and Scottish Homes offered no comment. Cunninghame district council, COSLA and SLANT expressed concern that the wind-up would be at the same time as local government re-structuring and outlined the approach which, in their view, would need to be adopted in order to achieve a smooth and orderly transfer of responsibilities.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to new town development corporations on the disposal of multi-storey flats in shared ownership between corporations and owner occupiers as part of their winding up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: The Scottish Office Industry Department has provided the new town development corporations with comprehensive guidance on the disposal of their housing stocks on wind-up. A copy of the guidance was sent to the hon. Member on 31 August 1992.

  The guidance requires the corporations to have regard to their existing responsibilities in respect of owner-occupiers, whether in multi-storey flats or any other types of accommodation, and to ensure that owner-occupiers are kept fully informed about any changes which may affect their interests.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of each of the Scottish new towns, what were(a) the financial targets set for the sales of assets in each of the last five years, (b) the receipts from sales for the separate categories of housing, industrial, commercial and land assets for each of the last five years and (c) the receipts from sales in the current financial year for the separate categories of housing, industrial, commercial and land assets.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: The information is shown in the table. A breakdown of non-housing receipts between those derived from the sale of industrial assets, commercial assets and land is not available centrally.
  517

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Industrial, Commercial and Land

  Cumbernauld

  Target

  6·000

  8·400

  7·492

  10·290

  11·806

  14·500

  Receipts

  7·806

  10·636

  8·129

  9·196

  8·377

  11·560

  East Kilbride

  Target

  10·491

  12·212

  12·585

  13·918

  15·930

  43·550

  Receipts

  4·932

  12·692

  9·340

  10·085

  12·655

  23·411

  Glenrothes

  Target

  2·519

  2·853

  6·525

  7·758

  8·174

  15·230

  Receipts

  5·832

  4·695

  8·564

  7·776

  2·655

  6·375

  Irvine

  Target

  5·612

  4·354

  3·387

  3·652

  2·281

  2·350

  Receipts

  5·707

  2·483

  2·619

  1·283

  1·200

  0·685

  Livingston

  Target

  7·500

  10·293

  16·964

  15·439

  12·970

  8·800

  Receipts

  1·663

  5·525

  14·400

  9·783

  14·974

  5·878

  Notes:

  1. The receipts figures are expressed in cash.

  2. The 1993–94 receipts figures show the position at 6 December 1993.

  3. For the last five years the targets shown are those issued at the start of the financial year; for 1993–94 the targets reflect adjustments to 6 December 1993.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the total cost of press liaison and publicity carried out by his Department in each year since 1979; how many press and publicity officers were employed in each such year; and what has been the total cost of their remuneration.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The following table shows (a) the running costs of The Scottish Office information directorate for each year from 1985–86 and (b) the number of information officer grades employed in each year since 1979:

  Year

  £ million

  No. of Information Officer Grades

  Vacancies

  1979–80

  1—

  22·0

  3

  1980–81

  1—

  24·0

  —

  1981–82

  1—

  20·0

  1

  1982–83

  1—

  22·0

  —

  1983–84

  1—

  20·0

  —

  1984–85

  1—

  20·0

  —

  1985–86

  0·9

  19·0

  1

  1986–87

  1·0

  20·0

  2

  1987–88

  1·1

  22·0

  1

  1988–89

  1·2

  23·0

  1

  1989–90

  1·4

  28·0

  3

  1990–91

  1·7

  31·5

  —

  1991–92

  1·9

  33·5

  —

  1992–93

  1·9

  29·5

  2

  1 The figures for running costs exclude expenditure on information campaigns. Directly comparable figures for years prior to the introduction of new Scottish Office budgetary arrangements in 1985–86 are not available. Nor is it possible to break down the running costs figures to differentiate between the remuneration of information officer grades and administrative staff within the Directorate.

  Departmental Hospitality
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the total cost of hospitality offered by his Department each year since 1979 for(a) St. Andrew's house, (b) Bute house and (c) Dover house.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The information is not held centrally in the form requested. The total expenditure on ministerial hospitality for the years in question is shown in the table. These figures include the cost of events held in St. Andrew's house, Bute house and Dover house—as well as other venues, including Edinburgh castle.

  Year

  £

  1979–80

  15,283

  1980–81

  18,427

  1981–82

  20,762

  1982–83

  31,588

  1983–84

  26,287

  1984–85

  27,301

  1985–86

  35,815

  1986–87

  38,315

  1987–88

  41,987

  1988–89

  42,987

  1989–90

  60,173

  1990–91

  65,123

  1991–92

  62,800

  1992–93

  94,385

  11993–94

  35,680

  1 To date.

  Press Notices
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press notices have been released by each office in his Department per month in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The Scottish Office information directorate issues news

  519
  releases for all Departments within the Scottish Office. The following table shows the number issued per month in each year since 1987:

  Month

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  January

  137

  139

  156

  169

  119

  157

  129

  February

  139

  228

  125

  150

  163

  180

  152

  March

  206

  132

  173

  225

  194

  170

  216

  April

  203

  187

  198

  165

  165

  56

  157

  May

  150

  210

  173

  193

  176

  150

  150

  June

  116

  211

  164

  194

  204

  188

  151

  July

  204

  208

  134

  166

  195

  179

  133

  August

  140

  162

  186

  123

  118

  168

  107

  September

  245

  125

  200

  158

  167

  175

  230

  October

  216

  208

  195

  153

  162

  184

  197

  November

  184

  207

  175

  161

  187

  220

  160

  December

  130

  214

  210

  151

  178

  166

  160

  ANNUAL TOTAL

  2,070

  2,231

  2,089

  2,008

  2,028

  1,993

  1 1,845

  1 As at 8 December 1993.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the tendering arrangements and controls employed by his Department for advertising campaigns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: A review of the Scottish Office advertising contract is held every three years. The last review was held in Febuary this year. Advertisements inviting agencies to tender for the work were placed in Scottish national daily newspapers and in the trade journal Campaign.

  Appointment was made following a three-stage selection appraisal of creativity, strategy planning and value for money. The judging panel comprised representatives from the Scottish Office information directorate, The Scottish Office purchase and supply unit, and the director of advertising, Central Office of Information.

  Assessment of the performance of the agencies through campaign evaluation is undertaken throughout the year. An audit of television airtime buying is currently being carried out by an independent consultant. Agencies are appointed on a renewable annual contract.

  Departmental Hospitality
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of events hosted by his Department in Bute house each year since 1979; and if he will give details of the total cost of running Bute house each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The number of events hosted by my Department in Bute house each year since 1979 is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of events

  1979

  13

  1980

  8

  1981

  9

  1982

  9

  1983

  9

  1984

  8

  1985

  9

  1986

  5

  520

  Year

  Number of events

  1987

  6

  1988

  13

  1989

  8

  1990

  7

  1991

  10

  1992

  7

  11993

  16

  1 To date.

  Information on the running costs of Bute house is only available since 1989–90 when my Department took over responsibility from the Property Services Agency. The information available is set out in the table.

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  24,100

  1990–91

  26,057

  1991–92

  35,482

  1992–93

  55,169

  1993–94

  143,640

  1 To date.

  The above figures include rent paid to Property Holdings, maintenance, insurance, furniture, miscellaneous household expenses and the housekeeper's salary.

  Sheep
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheep quota applications his Department administered during 1993 to the nearest convenient estimate; and how many civil servants are allocated to this task.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December I993]: The Scottish Office agriculture and fisheries department has allocated sheep quota to 22,300 individual producers during 1993 and processed 1,700 applications to transfer and lease quota for the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme year. The number of staff working on these tasks has varied according to the timing of the application processes and the volume of inquiries received from producers or others on their behalf.
  521
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from(a) farmers, (b solicitors and (c) hon. Members concerning complaints in the administration of the sheep quota system.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The Scottish Office agriculture and fisheries department receives several hundred inquiries from producers or their agents each week concerning various aspects of the sheep quota system. Very few have lodged a complaint against the administration of the quota system although some may have experienced difficulties contacting departmental staff by telephone during certain peak periods. I have received letters from 14 hon. Members concerning sheep quotas, three of which have referred to complaints about administration.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many personalised letters he has written to people in East Lothian and Berwickshire, respectively, seeking representations in support of his plans to establish a new local authority covering part of East Lothian and Berwickshire.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: None.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the response from Scottish Enterprise Tayside to his consultation document on restructuring Scottish local government.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: Scottish Enterprise Tayside has asked that its response to the consultation paper "Shaping the New Councils" be treated as confidential.

  Direct Service/Labour Organisations
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts awarded to Scottish local authority direct service/labour organisations have not been subject to the issuing of a notice alleging anti-competitive behaviour; and on how many occasions such actions were taken.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: Information on the number of contracts let to local authority direct service and labour organisations is not held centrally. Thirteen notices have been served to date in respect of anti-competitive behaviour.

  Region or Islands Area

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Central

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lothian

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Tayside

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9

  8

  8

  7

  7

  8

  2

  2

  2

  1

  522
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority direct service/ labour organisations, operating contracts in Scotland have achieved the required rate of return since 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The statutory financial objective has been achieved on 1,017 occasions since 1988–89.

  Local Government Administration
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the authorities that have been challenged by his Department, in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits in order to meet the requirements under statute.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: No Scottish authorities have been the subject of Secretary of State's sanctions on the basis of client-contractor splits.

  List D Schools
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much financial support central Government contributed to the revenue costs of list D schools in each of the five years preceding their abolition in 1986.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: The information available shows that the Scottish Office paid grants towards the revenue expenditure of those schools as follows:

  £

  1981–82

  6,486,300

  1982–83

  6,631,300

  1983–84

  5,051,200

  1984–85

  6,253,600

  1985–86

  6,425,500

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mink farms have operated in each region of Scotland in each year since 1984; and what is the current figure.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 December 1993]: The number of licensed mink farms operating at 1 March on each year is set out in the table. No mink farms are currently operating in Scotland.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans to promote the development in other regions of the scheme operating in Lothian region relating to complaints in sexual offence cases.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: Arrangements to allocate a nominated police officer to support and liaise with the victim are an integral part of the investigation of allegations of sex offences. As such they are operational matters and the responsibility of the appropriate chief constable. I understand however that similar procedures are observed by all eight Scottish forces.

  NHS Employees
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines have been issued to health boards concerning the procedures for suspension of national health service employees and the length of time during which formal disciplinary inquiries are carried out.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Guidance has been issued on disciplinary procedures in

  1989

  1990

  1991

  3 Years Average

  LFA

  Non-LFA

  LFA

  Non-LFA

  LFA

  Non-LFA

  LFA

  Non-LFA

  Set-aside1

  3,643

  7,807

  4,919

  12,949

  6,487

  15,796

  5,016

  12,184

  Protein crops

  526

  4,509

  358

  4,046

  353

  3,024

  412

  3,860

  Oilseed rape

  7,821

  28,244

  8,919

  36,276

  9,896

  39,999

  8,879

  34,840

  Cereals

  188,780

  319,270

  178,060

  303,383

  175,843

  292,665

  180,895

  305,106

  Total

  200,770

  359,830

  192,256

  356,654

  192,579

  351,484

  2195,202

  2355,990

  1 Figures taken from the 5 year and 1 year set-aside scheme returns.

  2 Before submission to the EC Commission in September 1992, these figures were adjusted by switching 34,854 hectares from LFA to non-LFA giving a base area of 160,348 hectares for the LFA and 390,844 hectares for the non-LFA. These figures were further adjusted to reflect the more accurate split betwen LFA and non-LFA arable land established from the IACS returns, and a further 39,303 hectares was switched from LFA to non-LFA giving new base areas of 121,045 hectares for the LFA and 430,147 for the non-LFA. These last figures are now accepted by the EC as the Scottish base areas. Throughout, the total base area has remained constant at 551,192 hectares.

  The set-aside figures recorded in the June census for 1989 and 1990 were 29,197 and 44,465 hectares respectively. These figures partly reflect land registered for set-aside and are therefore higher than the area actually set-aside. No specific set-aside questions were asked in 1991.

DEFENCE

  IMS Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a fuller description of projects 2, 27 and 59 supplied by IMS Ltd.; if he will describe the nature of the oversight services supplied by MOD UK—project 57; if he will describe the nature of the medical equipment supplied by IMS—project 15; and if he will describe the nature of the engineering equipment supplied by IMS—project 47 —to which his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 295-96, referred.

  Mr. Aitken
  Certain information about the contracts placed under the Jordan defence package has been made public during oral evidence given to Lord Justice Scott's524
  connection with the professional conduct or professional competence of hospital medical and dental staff. This includes advice concerning the suspension of a practitioner from duty temporarily. The guidance recommends that the suspension should be confirmed or terminated by the chairman of the employing authority within 14 days. If it is decided that there is a prima facie case of a serious disciplinary nature, an investigating panel should report on the matter to the employing authority within 32 weeks.

  No specific guidance has been issued as regards other staff groups.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State, (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the figures in hectares for (a) set-aside; (b) pulses; (c) oil seed rape and (d) cereals for 1989, 1990 and 1991 which were used to calculate the base area in Scotland;

  (2) if he will list the June census set-aside figures for Scotland for 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Sir Hector Munro
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: The figures used to calculate the base areas in Scotland are as follows:

  inquiry. I can therefore provide, exceptionally, the further information requested by the hon. Member, which is as follows:

  Project

  2 Tank modifications to improve gun accuracy and range

  15 Medical and laundry stores for a field military unit

  27 Various explosive ordnance disposal equipment such as mine detectors

  47 Mechanical handling equipment and fire fighting tenders

  57 Supervision services in respect of Project 54 (Fast Patrol Boats)

  59 Machine guns for the Royal Guard vehicle

  Export Sales Agreements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the quantities and value of(a) project 1 —120 mm and 105 mm ammunition supplied by Royal Ordnance, (b) project 4—main battle tank spares supplied by Royal Ordnance—to which his answer of 3 November, Official Report, columns 295-96, relates.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information contained in my answer of 3 November—Official Report, columns 295-96—was given exceptionally and contrary to the established practice of successive administrations not to release information about individual defence exports. This was because some of the detail of these contracts had been made public during

  525
  oral evidence given to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. It would not be appropriate to give further details about the quantities and values of these contracts.

  International Signal and Control Company
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what applications his Department received prior to 1987 from the International Signal and Control Company of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, for clearance to work with British military contractors in military sales.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no record of any such applications.

  Animal Research
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 605, regarding the research use of animals, if he will specify the nature of the research and experimentation carried out on (a) sheep, (b) goats, (c) pigs, (d) miniature pigs, (e) marmosets and (f) rhesus monkeys.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to make available detailed information on the usage of particular species for defence research. Such information could enable a potential aggressor to assess the current state of our medical countermeasures against the threat of attack by chemical or biological weapons. It is not in the national interest to provide such information.

  Animal experiments are carried out only when it is judged essential and when no adequate alternative exists. The total number of animal experiments carried out by the Ministry of Defence is about one half of one per cent. of all animal experiments carried out in the United Kingdom.

  L85 Mechanical Fuse
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been killed or injured by the use of the Italian L85 mechanical fuse; when the fuses will be replaced and at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  There is no record of any deaths or injuries attributable to the use by British service men of the Italian L85 mechanical fuse. There is a continuing limited operational role for this fuse in training, but its use will gradually reduce as the weapon systems for which it is required are withdrawn from service.

  Should a further purchase of this type of fuse be required, this will be open to competition in the usual way. As I announced to the House on 23 November 1993, at column 309-10, we will not award any new contracts to the manufacturer of the L85 fuse, Barletti, until the facts surrounding the Gordon Foxley case have been fully investigated.

  F3 Tornados
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to initiate legal action against Airwork in relation to the damage incurred in the cost of the modification contract in the F3 Tornados at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. Aitken
  A sample of the damaged aircraft is being surveyed to establish the precise extent of the damage and its structural implications. This work is expected to take at least until March 1994. Thereafter the aircraft design authority will be in a position to make recommendations on repair schemes. When these have been costed we will be able to assess the amount of the Department's claim against Airwork Limited. The claim will be presented within the period allowed in law.

  Ferranti International
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 54, what consideration he has given to discussing with the receivers of Ferranti International the possibility of bidding for future MoD orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials of my Department discussed this with the receivers of Ferranti International at their first meeting on 1 December. There is no objection to their tendering for future defence orders, although naturally our standard criteria for the financial soundness of our contractors would have to be satisfied before a contract could be placed.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 54, what information he has provided to the receivers of Ferranti International regarding his policy on the long-term future for the defence industrial base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has provided no such information to the receivers, who have made no request for it.

  GEC
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 176, what information he has provided to the management of GEC regarding his future procurement plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials of my Department have a standing instruction that, within the constraints of security and commercial confidences, they should be as forthcoming as possible with defence companies about future procurement plans. The management of GEC, as of any other defence contractor, will therefore have been kept informed of these plans through the many contacts between the Department and the company.

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

The Marquess of Bristol: Imprisonment
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received a letter from the Chief Clerk of the Crown Court at Snaresbrook informing him that the Marquess of Bristol was, on 28th June 1993, convicted at that court on two counts of the offence of possessing a controlled drug, and, on 6th December 1993, was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.

Kuwait: Iraqi Incursions
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that action by the United Nations is sufficient to prevent further incursions by Iraqi security forces into Kuwait.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, following recent violations of the Iraq-Kuwait border, the Security Council made a statement on 23rd November reminding Iraq of its obligations under Security Council Resolutions 687 and 833, and demanding that Iraq respect the inviolability of the boundary. The United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM) will be strengthened by the arrival of a mechanised battalion in February 1994.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that the Iraqi people and their government are grateful to our Government for the mention of their country in the Queen's Speech and for trying to understand what they are going through? Nevertheless, is she further aware that Kuwait is still subject to Iraqi terror raids? Kuwait knows what Iraqi occupation can mean. They are grateful for all that we have done, but they still live in terrible anxiety and a great sense of fear. Is she able to tell the House that something can be done to help assuage those feelings that now afflict the Kuwaiti people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we agree that the Kuwaiti people are still very nervous. That is why we do not believe that sanctions should be lifted until Iraq complies fully with the relevant Security Council resolutions. We wait for the Iraqi regime to comply fully with those resolutions and to recognise the international frontier. It is up to Iraq to prevent further demonstrations and incursions into Kuwaiti territory.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, according to her right honourable friend Sir Edward Heath, who recently returned from Iraq,
1114
Saddam Hussein is using the economic chaos and poverty resulting from the sanctions to increase his support base among his own people? Could she ensure that there is some means of allowing a limited amount of Iraq's foreign assets to be released pending full compliance with the sanctions, in order to improve the lot of the Iraqi people and the surrounding nations who are suffering as a result of being unable to trade with Iraq?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware that there are no lengths to which Iraq and particularly Saddam Hussein will not go to try to blame others for the penalties that the people of Iraq suffer because Saddam Hussein will not implement Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 which permit Iraq to export oil. The proceeds from the exportation of oil would fund the UN operations, including the humanitarian programme. We are still helping in a small way and we shall continue to do so. However, we have to make sure that the facts of the situation are known. The Iraqi opposition takes every opportunity to do that and where there are opportunities to make known the real situation in that country, obviously we should be very glad for the Iraqi opposition to do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Question is perhaps somewhat misconceived? Assume that Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied—which is not a difficult assumption—what on earth are they supposed to do without the support of the United States and the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Britain alone cannot change the situation. However, looking through the list of Security Council resolutions, it is interesting how few people—on many occasions no one—voted against the resolutions brought to the United Nations to show Saddam Hussein exactly what is the situation. Therefore we are not alone. We believe it is right to continue with the sanctions regime; our quarrel is with the regime and not with the long-suffering Iraqi people. Food and medicines are permitted under the sanctions regime. The review in November enabled the council to conclude that conditions did not exist for the lifting of sanctions.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, while the Iraqi Government refuse to recognise the frontier of Kuwait, there can be no question of the Government recommending that sanctions be lifted?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree absolutely.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, despite the release of the three British hostages, millions of people in Kurdistan still live in fear of Saddam Hussein crossing their border? Will my noble friend also confirm that the Foreign Office has no illusions that Saddam is a reformed character?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government have no illusions about Saddam Hussein. We are glad that Sir Edward Heath was able to help bring back the three British men who are now reunited with their families. We provided support and advice, but there was no question of a deal to secure their release. However, we are aware daily of the fears of the Kurdish people in Iraq. We hope that they will be secure from the threats, although that is unlikely as long as Saddam remains. On the more general question of detainees, we hope that Iraq will release all foreign detainees, including the Kuwaitis, for whom the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, was concerned.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether or not some of the people in Kuwait would like more democracy? And is anything being done to encourage that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is an entirely separate Question. I know that that matter has been discussed privately. It is perhaps best left in private, where matters seem to progress rather better than they do in public.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept from the Opposition that we completely support the continuance of sanctions against the Iraqi regime under the authority of the United Nations? Indeed, the protestations made by Saddam Hussein of "liberating" Kuwait, accompanied by constant provocation on the part of military and others against the Kuwaitis, is totally unacceptable. It shows no change of temperament or mind on the part of that regime. Consequently, we welcome what the Minister said in regard to sanctions.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord and delighted that we should agree so wholeheartedly on the matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her replies this afternoon. They were most encouraging. However, is the Minister aware that Saddam Hussein is indulging in chemical warfare, particularly in the Basra Province? He is threatening to liberate Kuwait. Therefore all that the noble Baroness said must be translated into reality by the uniting of our partners in Europe and the Security Council. We must translate words into reality.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, UNSCOM is investigating the recent reports of chemical weapon attacks. We would view the matter seriously were the reports to be confirmed.

EC Expenditure: Controls
2.47 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state the nature and extent of the United Kingdom's parliamentary control over the amounts paid or payable from the Exchequer to meet
1116
the expenditure of the European Community as detailed in the annual budgets, prior to their establishment by the Council of Ministers concerned.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government deposit documentation and submit explanatory memoranda on the Community budget for consideration under the arrangements for scrutiny of European Community proposals. The explanatory memoranda set out the implications for the UK's contribution to the Community budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in bringing something into the public domain rather than allowing it to remain private, can the noble Earl explain why he is unable to answer the Question on the Order Paper? It asks what parliamentary control exists over the expenses. Is the noble Earl aware that it is no use citing to me the various appendices and parts of the Edinburgh conference? I want a definite answer. Is there any parliamentary responsibility or not? Are the Government answerable to Parliament or not for those expenses?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I answered the noble Lord's Question. Explanatory memoranda are available. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was at the forefront in ensuring parliamentary Questions and scrutiny.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does Parliament have the opportunity, through the procedures, to refuse finance to the organs and institutions of the EC? That is what we want to know. What parliamentary control exists over the financing of the EC?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that when we joined the European Community there was an agreement as to the amount of the budget increase provided that it stayed within the limit. We make certain that it does; that is our responsibility.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not any Answer that he gives would satisfy the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can inform my noble friend that on certain issues the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and I have been very much in agreement.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House owes a great debt to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for the research that they carry out and the way in which they keep us all aware of what the Government are doing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are times when I think that the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, are the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I certainly wish they were, particularly on these matters. I have learnt more about financing the European Community from listening to the questions and the answers than in any other way. I wish to help the noble Earl to clarify his answer. Am I right that essentially Parliament votes money for the Government in the normal way without voting it specifically for the Community? Or are there also examples of where one is actually voting in a separate way in terms of finance for the Community? I know the commitment under the various pieces of European legislation, but am I right that essentially the control of public expenditure here is the same as for the control of finance in other ways?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, provided the budget complies with the legislation, including the legally binding ceilings on revenue from own resources, which is 1.2 per cent. of EC GNP, further specific authority for the annual contribution is not required because of the European Communities Act 1972.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend Lord Bruce therefore right? Are there examples of a method or principle of control that is different from that applying to public finance within the United Kingdom economy? Is the noble Earl confirming that what my noble friend says is correct?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. There is parliamentary scrutiny because all the documents are laid before Parliament. But provided the budget is within the own resources agreement and within the legislation that is laid down for it, no further specific authority is required.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the budgetary procedures in the European Community are significantly different from those in the United Kingdom and that, in particular, the budget is the arithmetical result of decisions already taken in the appropriate Council of Ministers or by the European Council? If those sums are to be challenged the appropriate place to challenge them is at the point when the policy is agreed. If one waits until the budget appears the horse has long since bolted.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that there is a different procedure for the European budget as opposed to our own Budget. There are the strict criteria by which the budget has to abide, and the Court of Auditors checks the European Parliament's budget, as indeed it checks our own.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl has acknowledged that the procedure is different. Of course, it is! But is it not very incongruous that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about a public sector borrowing requirement of something in the region of £50 billion and takes it out, or proposes to take it out, on the poorer sections of the community, there is expenditure amounting to some £3.5 billion net going out of the same funds? Should not the Government, at the intergovernmental conferences, insist on some amendment being made to the limits already concurred with?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that it was entirely due to the actions of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the Edinburgh summit that the increases in the budget were kept to the level that they were. Others in the Community wished to push them higher. The noble Lord will be aware too that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister achieved last weekend a reduction of the borrowing which would have affected our children's and our children's children's taxes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that if what his noble friend Lord Cockfield says is correct it reveals an appalling state of affairs? Is it really the case that every time a decision is made in the European Union that automatically goes into the budget without any further ado?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, provided it is within the limits, yes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I ask the Minister once again to remind the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the authority for contributions to the European Community budget is that of the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore by Act of the British Parliament? Will he further remind him that, although many weak reasons have been given for disobeying particular Acts of Parliament, a defence of parliamentary sovereignty cannot be among them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the European Communities Act 1972 controls what happens. We will take action if it is outside that.

Human Rights
2.55 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they marked Human Rights Day on Friday 10th December by publicising human rights initiatives they have taken during the last year.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no. A summary of UK policy on human rights is contained in Foreign Policy Document No. 215, which is available in both Libraries of the House.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although responsibility is frequently difficult to pinpoint, regrettably there is too much evidence of spreading abuse of human rights in the world? Does she agree that it would be helpful in demonstrating tangibly the Government's commitment to the support of human rights if each year they were to make available to Parliament a human rights report detailing the specific action they have taken to advance the cause of human rights, including foreign policy, aid policy, co-ordinated interdepartmental policy, awareness training for civil servants and liaison with appropriate non-governmental organisations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, certainly agree with the noble Lord that there is far too much evidence of abuse. I rather like his idea and I shall

1119
look into the noble Lord's suggestion. Perhaps I may tell him that I can quickly give four examples: the mission of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe to China in December 1992; the recent visit of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, to Pakistan; my right honourable friend Mr. Goodlad receiving officials from Vietnam to help them learn how to organise their human rights policy; and also the lead we have taken in the European Union in making positive criticism at the CSCE Human Dimension meeting in Warsaw in September of the Turkish Government's abuse of the right to freedom of expression. All four are just some of the examples of the initiatives we have taken during the year; and we intend to take more.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have defended human rights in the Far East, in the Near East, in South Africa, in South America, in Northern Ireland and everywhere else? Is it not merely the Government's reluctance for publicity which has prevented these things from becoming better known? Should we not be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for this opportunity of drawing attention to them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government have taken action in all parts of the world on these issues. I am glad to report that, after working hard with our European Union partners in New York in the face of strong opposition, we have now agreed that a High Commissioner for Human Rights should be established. We are waiting to go to the General Assembly on that point.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are most grateful to the Government for speaking out robustly at the CSCE human dimension review meeting in Warsaw on freedom of expression, especially on the violations of that right in Turkey? Is she further aware that on Human Rights Day itself the Turkish authorities raided all the offices of the pro-Kurdish newspaper Ozgur Gündem in Istanbul and Diyarbakir and so on, closed down the newspaper, arrested all the staff and damaged the equipment, thus making it impossible for the newspaper to appear? Will the noble Baroness consider what further steps are available to us under the CSCE procedures for persuading the Turkish authorities to comply with their obligations under the freedom of expression provisions?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I heard this morning on my return from abroad of what had happened in Turkey on Friday. We are looking at what may be done in that respect.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in addition to the action which the Government have taken and which all of us applaud, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that the British Government do not permit arms from this country to be sold to those countries which are guilty of abuse of human rights?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we shall certainly only enter into any arms contract where those
1120
arms are for defensive purposes and never where they are for offensive purposes. We are most careful in what we do in that respect.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that sometimes it is difficult to determine one from the other? From these Benches we have often asked about the supply of arms to Indonesia in view of the appalling breaches of human rights in East Timor. As I have been instrumental in asking such a critical Question, will the Minister accept from me our appreciation not only of the department of the Foreign Office which deals with human rights, but also the decision which she has taken that in the Assembly they will press for a human rights commissioner? That would be a great step forward.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As regards East Timor, we remain gravely concerned about the human rights situation. With our European Union partners we have repeatedly made clear to the Indonesian Government the importance which we attach to respect for human rights. I can only echo what the noble Lord has said about the human rights unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the help which we have had from non-governmental organisations on human rights, whose members I meet on a six-monthly basis. We are working well together and that augurs well for our influence in the General Assembly debate.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the whole House is encouraged by her positive reply? Does she agree that the question asked by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn illustrates the importance of recognising that this is not just a Foreign Office matter but stretches across departments, with interdepartmental responsibility, and that that aspect could be covered in a report? Will the Minister also tell us what is being done by the Government to support the United Nations in its extended responsibilities following the Vienna conference last year?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I appreciate the point made in the noble Lord's first remark. We have been very active in the drafting group of the Third Committee of the General Assembly in agreeing terms for the creation of a High Commissioner for human rights. I am delighted that we are moving forward in that respect. It will be up to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to select a suitable person to fill the post. We shall make sure that all the information that comes our way is fed into that operation.

Suicide Rate: Reduction Measures
3.2 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they propose to take to achieve the target in the White Paper Health of the Nation of reducing the suicide rate by 15 per cent by the year 2000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the measures that we have taken include funding of the confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people; the issue of the mental illness key area handbook to NHS and local authority managers; support for the "Defeat Depression" campaign; and publication and widespread distribution of a booklet on suicide. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. I appreciate the steps which are being taken and I hope that they will result in improved mental health services. Does she agree that perhaps suicide is related to wider factors than simply mental illness alone? For example, has she read an article in this week's British Medical Journal about unemployment and psychiatric admissions? The report concludes:
"Unemployment rates are an extremely powerful indicator of the rates of serious mental illness that will need treatment in hospital in those aged under 65".
While I agree that unemployment is not directly related to suicide per se, does the Minister agree that there are wider economic and social factors involved in suicide rather than simply the improvement of services? In setting the target, did the Government realise that they had to deliver a marked improvement in the economy in order to achieve the target?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do appreciate that there are many factors which affect suicide. It is a very complex problem, but in looking at unemployment there is no direct correlation between the numbers of unemployed and those who commit suicide. Indeed, in times of full employment the suicide rate sometimes goes up. Although I accept the general points made by the noble Lord, I cannot accept his point that there is a direct correlation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as the Minister said, there are multi-faceted reasons for suicide. I believe that there is a ministerial and inter-governmental committee which is looking at targets. Has it considered this particular question of the reduction in the numbers of suicides and, if not, could it be an important measure, bearing in mind the different government departments which have an interest?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes my Lords, this is an area on which the Government place a very high priority. It is one of the five key areas in the Health of the Nation strategy and will be very widely considered.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that the rate of suicide among farmers is much higher than in a great many other social groups? Is she aware that the situation is particularly tragic in the West Country, where young farmers are committing suicide? Will the Minister bear in mind that exposure to toxic chemicals in agriculture can cause or exacerbate depression and that it is often unrecognised by the medical profession? Can the Minister say what action the Government propose to take?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much appreciate the doughty fight that the noble Countess has been carrying on in the past few months. I am aware that particularly farmers have a high risk of suicide. We are doing a great deal of work with them, specifically in conjunction with the Samaritans and the National Farmers Union. As I am married to a farmer I am well aware that he needs to be cherished.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many suicides last year were aged 16 or 17? Among that number can she also say how many were without a job, a youth training place or severe hardship payments of income support?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there were 5,500 suicides in total last year. I do not have the detailed breakdown that the noble Earl wishes, although I shall be very happy to obtain it for him in due course.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government have taken, and propose to take, to reduce the incidence of suicide in prison and especially in young offender institutions? Further, will she consider action to avoid possible suicide due to depression in those who are suddenly and adversely affected by the operation of the Child Support Act?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have made considerable efforts to try to reduce the number of suicides in prison by improving communication and co-operation between the staff; by the training of prison officers and health care staff in the recognition and assessment of suicidal risk; by improving the therapeutic regimes of psychiatric inpatients, and by the use of fellow prisoners as listeners, supported by the Samaritans. As regards the second part of the question, I know that one case was publicised in the press. I believe that that was a unique situation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in setting the target in their White Paper for the reduction in the number of suicides, what evidence did the Government have that any of the steps which they are taking would be effective in reducing the numbers of suicides? I am not aware of any. If there are no actual examples of reducing the number of suicides in other countries, why was suicide chosen as one of the targets to aim at?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the target was set only a year ago. We have put in hand a number of measures. Clearly, it is far too early to make a rigorous assessment as to whether our efforts have been effective. In other European countries it is interesting to note that Denmark, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, West Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Italy all have higher suicide rates than this country.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council.

EC Development Aid: ECC Report
3.9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on EC Development Aid (21st Report, Session 1992–93, HL Paper 86).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the first Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to the second Motion in my name.
I am presenting to the House two reports by the European Communities Committee, prepared by Sub-Committee A, on the EC's policies towards developing countries. The first, on development aid, was published in May and the second, on trade and aid, last month. I am glad that we can debate them together because, if the Community's commitment to fostering sustainable development in the third world, particularly among the poorest and the most disadvantaged, is to be effective, its development aid cannot be seen as standing on its own but needs to be buttressed by its other policies, notably on trade and agriculture in so far as they affect the developing world.
I should like to begin by acknowledging our debt to all those who helped us with oral or written evidence to both inquiries: government departments, nongovernmental organisations, international bodies, academics, Members of the European Parliament, and many others. We were glad to be able to visit the Commission in Brussels and the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg. We were particularly appreciative of the oral evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and from Sir Leon Brittan. We owe special debts to Dr. Christopher Stevens of the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University, who was our specialist adviser for both inquiries, and to our Clerk, Mr. Tom Mohan, who skilfully organised our inquiries and drafted our reports.
In speaking to two reports in the time normally available to introduce one, I obviously cannot attempt to cover them in detail, but I should like to focus on a few key points and hope that some of my colleagues may supplement what I have to say.
Our inquiries took place against a background of renewed discussion in the Council on the effectiveness of EC aid and on the relationship of the Community's aid programmes both to the aid programmes of member states and to the Community's other external policies. At the Development Councils held in May and at the beginning of this month, the Ministers of the member states considered similar questions to those dealt with in our reports. I should welcome it if the Minister, whom I thank for the government responses we have received
1124
to both inquiries, could inform the House in her reply what progress has been made in those discussions and thus perhaps supplement the somewhat terse written reply that was given to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, on 9th December.
One other important aspect of the background to these inquiries was the Maastricht Treaty, which has amended the Treaty of Rome to provide formally for the first time general powers and objectives for Community aid. Our inquiries were directed mainly at the principles which underpin the Community's policies rather than into particular or topical problems.
The coverage of the two reports differs in one important respect. The Community has exclusive competence under the common commercial policy to conduct commercial relations, including the award of trading preferences, with the rest of the world, whereas development aid is a matter of shared or parallel competence, with both the EC and its member states having their aid programmes. In the latter field there was much talk by some witnesses of complementarity, but although there is a reasonable degree of co-ordination to avoid duplication or conflict, there is no division of responsibility between the Community and member states according to predetermined criteria as to what is best done at EC or member state level. The EC's aid programme is essentially a 13th one alongside those of the member states and pursuing the same aims. We did not, however, question the justifications for this 13th programme and I personally feel that among other things it helps to make the Community a more outward-looking body.
There is, however, an important point about its size resulting from the Edinburgh Council's decision to increase spending on EC aid to Asia, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe and food aid by 60 per cent. in real terms in the period up to 1999. The Council decision to increase EC aid provided from the general budget is of course only part of the picture. Rather more than half of the Community's development aid is provided to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states through the European Development Fund negotiated under the Lomé Convention. This is subject to review at five-yearly intervals. The next review will take place next year, and may well increase the size of the EDF.
One thing did, however, strike us forcibly. The UK's contribution to the EC's aid programme comes out of the same aid budget that finances our own national aid programme. The Overseas Development Agency seems to have escaped cuts in the recent public expenditure decisions; but if our contribution to the EC's programme is increased without an increase in real terms in the total ODA budget, it follows that there has to be a reduction in our own bilateral programmes to accommodate the EC increase. I accept that there are uncertainties attaching to the size of this squeeze, particularly since the future size of the EDF will not be settled until next year. But squeeze there will certainly be, and we were concerned about the implications for the ODA's expertise and independent capacity. I accept also that it is the quality of outputs rather than the volume of inputs which matters, but we felt bound to draw the House's attention to the possible serious

1125
consequences: and I note that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place (Fourth Report, Session 1992–93) subsequently said that it shares our concern.
This diversion of resources from our national to the EC's aid programme will make it all the more important to ensure that full value for money is achieved for the EC's aid programme. In expressing some concerns about this, I would not like to give the impression of a report which is unduly critical of the Commission and its overseas representatives. Indeed, we heard much evidence that was favourable to them: and those of us who visited Brussels were, I think, favourably impressed by the quality of some of the people in the development directorates whom we met. Nevertheless, we felt that certain changes were needed and that in the Development Council the Government should press, or perhaps I should say "continue to press" (for I accept that to some extent they are already doing so), for these changes.
They can be summarised under two heads: first, the Community needs a more integrated aid policy given the different legal instruments through which it functions and the need to have a common EC approach on many across-the-board policy issues. The EC's aid programme has grown up piecemeal over the past 25 years, with both the EDF for the Lomé states and a wide range of different programmes financed direct from the EC budget. It may be politically impractical to merge these different instruments now, but the need to focus aid primarily on the poorest people in the poorest countries calls for a more integrated approach, with as a first step the responsibilities for aid at present divided between Directorates-General VIII and I being amalgamated under a single director-general. We also expressed some concern about the separating off of the EC's emergency humanitarian relief into a new office (ECHO) because in many cases a division between emergency and longer-term aid cannot be sustained.
Secondly, we think the Commission should concentrate more on policy and pre-planning where a longer planning horizon, particularly for budgetary aid, is desirable and then afterwards on monitoring and evaluating the quality of aid delivered; and should delegate more to its representatives in the field during the middle operational phase. We heard far too much about the need to refer everything to Brussels, although we accept that to some extent this reflected a concern about financial accountability.
When we were taking evidence on the development aid inquiry, several witnesses made the point that trade concessions were a more effective way of helping developing countries than aid: and our second report on trade and aid was a natural follow-up, particularly since Article 130v of the Maastricht Treaty required the Community to take account of its development objectives in the other policies it implements which affect developing countries.
The EC's tariff preferences, which have their origins in colonial history but have become overlaid with a variety of different agreements, are complicated, different and varying in their effect. Part 2 of our report
1126
therefore tries to give a straightforward and clear explanation of them before we go on in Part 3 to evaluate them.
The complicated preferential hierarchy, or "pyramid of privilege" as it is often known, is not significantly out of line with the Community's declared objective of concentrating the greatest assistance on the poorest countries. Preferences are, however, a very imprecise tool. They are negotiated without proper analysis of the potential value of a given concession and are difficult to target to particular needs. Furthermore, their take-up, as distinct from their awarding, depends on a whole variety of other economic, administrative and educational policies. That is illustrated vividly by the fact that many of the least favoured states from the preference point of view have in practice performed better than some of the most favoured. Indeed, in some cases an, over-reliance on preferences seems to have been a disincentive to diversification away from traditional and primary products.
The value of tariff preferences has in any case been eroded by greater trade liberalisation, and that is likely to continue. Furthermore, developed countries wishing to restrict imports in sensitive areas have turned increasingly to quotas and non-tariff barriers. While accepting the need for those in certain circumstances, we were clear that some of them—and in particular some aspects of the rules of origin—bear especially heavily on developing countries. We think that that is an area where the EC's declared priority to take account of their needs in its other policies is not being sufficiently followed: and here we offer some suggestions. In particular we believe that both the public and private sectors could do more to encourage the export regimes of developing countries.
Three things were in a sense peripheral to our second inquiry but were of crucial importance to it. The first was uncertainty about the outcome of the Uruguay Round. But, assuming that it was concluded successfully, we felt that it could only benefit the developing world in the long run through an expansion of world trade. However, it is a sad fact that some of the poorest will benefit least and some, particularly in Africa, may lose in the short and medium term. We believe therefore that some poor countries should be offered by way of compensation new preferences on certain products considered too sensitive for general liberalisation.
The second was the CAP. I hope that we avoided trespassing on the territory of Sub-Committee D, but we felt bound to record our view, which the Select Committee endorsed, that the CAP, which leads, for example, to the dumping of subsidised beef in West African countries to the detriment of farmers and herdsmen in those countries, is seriously holding back the development of agriculture in the developing world; and without that no other development there is possible.
The third was the help being given to central and eastern European states. Of course we welcomed that, and in the long run the emergence of those countries as fully fledged market economies should benefit also the traditional developing world. There is, however, no doubt that that help represents a diversion of resources

1127
away from the traditional developing countries, particularly in the technical assistance area, and we felt that that should not continue. Central and eastern Europe is a new commitment and other resources should be found for it.
I hope that these two reports provide the House with a useful assessment of the EC's main policies towards the traditional developing world. I should like particularly to thank most warmly the other members of Sub-Committee A for all their interest and help. It was a privilege to work with them in my baptism of fire as chairman of Sub-Committee A.
There was of course a missing element in these inquiries: debt and the burden of debt servicing. Consideration of that issue, which is an international and not just a European Union problem, would however have taken us outside our terms of reference. We therefore ventilated the possibility of an ad hoc Select Committee to address the matter.
This country has a major interest in helping the traditional developing countries. There is a moral interest to help the have-nots and the less fortunate certainly, but there is also a self-interest. When poor countries progress, they are better able to care for themselves and less prone to instability and conflict; and as a major international trading nation we should welcome the growth and diversification of their economies. But at a time when there are severe constraints on public expenditure—and when in particular a higher proportion of our aid budget is to be spent on our behalf by the EC rather than directly by the ODA—it becomes more and more important that that assistance is targeted correctly and that value for money is achieved. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on EC Development Aid (21st Report, Session 1992–93, HL Paper 86).—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, perhaps I may first say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, said in speaking to these two Motions. As the first of the other members of the sub-committee whom he thanked to speak, I should like, on behalf of all its members, to thank our chairman for the leadership and control that he exercised over us. I also warmly endorse the gratitude he expressed to our Clerk, our specialist adviser and all our witnesses.
Once upon a time—to be precise some 30 years ago—I was an aid Minister myself. I realise, therefore, the danger of having my head stuffed with out-of-date, and dangerously out-of-date, information. On the other hand, I believe that I learnt some basic principles at that time which are probably still valid. So I shall not hesitate to use that experience in some of the comments that I wish to make.
First, I am sure of one thing that has not changed; that is, the necessity of looking at aid and trade in the same breath. I am sure it is of value to the House that our sub-committee looked at those two subjects one after the other and that we should today be discussing the two
1128
reports together. The first question that I asked myself, coming again to the subject, was whether it was right that aid to the developing countries should be provided by the Community collectively and by individual member countries. It was apparent from the evidence that no serious attempt was made to co-ordinate collective and individual national policies. Nor was there much attempt within the Community to co-ordinate its own policy. Nevertheless, on balance, I believe that it is right. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave one reason—the outward-lookingness of the Community. But in the post-colonial era I believe that there is some value in the poorest developing countries having more individual nation states to whom they can look for assistance. So on balance it is right that we should be content—although it is a muddle sometimes—that the Community itself, collectively, and individual member states, should be providing aid. That brings me straightaway to what I want to emphasise perhaps more than anything else; that is, the point made by the noble Lord: the singular importance of Britain's own aid programme.
All one can discover about that aid programme from independent sources is that everyone is full of praise for it. Its quantity is never enough but its quality and effectiveness are rated highly. I support our contribution to the EC's aid programme, but we must not allow our own aid programme to fall below what I might call the critical mass level where we can maintain its present efficacy and quality. That would be bad for Britain and the interests of the developing countries. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have words of comfort on that subject.
I pass to the EC's organisation; and perhaps it would be kinder to pass over it quickly. While I agree that it has among its staff some first-class skilled people of great merit, its organisation is crazy. It is spread about among several directors-general and that must be put right. Rationalisation of the present organisation within the EC cannot wait for years.
In addition to the unrationalised responsibility within the Commission I wish to re-emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As the committee took evidence it became apparent that there was a need for the Commission to concentrate more on the monitoring and evaluation of its programmes as the best way of obtaining value for money and of achieving a good effect on the ground. The decision-taking and the administration must become significantly less centralised. More of the management needs to be local because it is at local level that co-ordination is achieved between what the EC is trying to do and what the non-governmental organisations, individual countries and the receiving governments are trying to do. Such co-ordination cannot be achieved by having messages flashing up and down the line between Brussels and the front line of action.
Furthermore, it is important that more effort is made not only by the Commission but by all individual donor countries and NGOs to make the maximum use of local staff; that is, using the nationals of the country that is being assisted. I have had experience both of overseas aid and that relating to the problems of inner cities and

1129
there is a similarity between them. The more experience I have had the more convinced I have become that one can build effectively only from the bottom upwards and not from the top down. I believe that is of immense importance.
Separate from that matter, but related to it, is my belief that it is about time the EC became more sceptical about claiming to provide aid by exporting food surpluses to developing countries. To call that "aid" is pure hypocrisy. Too often it disrupts the primary production facilities of the developing country on which its whole social and economic development depends. I remember that when I became an aid Minister many years ago I received a request from the late Sir Edward Boyle to talk to him about the subject. He was a splendid man in everything that he did and he had some wise words to say on the matter. Above everything else he wished to impress upon me his historical view. I had studied science at university, not history, and I needed support in the matter. His historical view was that the healthy development of a country required that an agrarian revolution should precede an industrial revolution. To achieve a healthy economy and a healthy industry in such countries one had to build up the primary side of agriculture, in particular, before one started helping with steel mills and so forth in terms of modern technology. I believe that in that respect, and in others, the EC must get the CAP under control. It should not handicap rather than help the development aid that we are trying to give to the countries that need it most.
I pass briefly to the EC trade policy. Hitherto it has depended almost entirely on preferences. There is a complicated pyramid of preferences to which the noble Lord referred. One of the disappointing factors is that in terms of development the countries receiving preference do not appear to have benefited as much as one might have hoped. No doubt the reasons for that are complicated, and some were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. One reason may be that if preference is given to a market one becomes complacent and not sufficiently competitive. Whatever the reason, preferences have not been as helpful as might have reasonably been expected, say, 20 years ago.
Whatever may be the truth of that, we must face the fact that with an increasing amount of free trade in the world, and perhaps a new GATT agreement, preferences will become less important. Trade will become freer and there will be fewer tariffs against which one can give a preference. Therefore, preferences will be no substitute for advanced countries more freely opening their markets to imports from developing countries.
Of course, that means hurt for Britain and for other countries but we must face that. I say not only to our Government—and I held this view 30 years ago in respect of the governments of other countries—let us spend, if necessary, some of the money which we are at present spending on aid in helping people in our home economies to be able more freely to absorb imports from developing countries. In doing so we shall be helping them to redeploy their own industries and employment. We shall have to do more of that.
In that respect the CAP is a terrible sinner but it is not the only sinner. Many industries in this country and in
1130
others too easily try to claim protection against dumping. Of course our industries must he properly protected against genuine dumping but the Committee considered, among other things, that what constitutes genuine dumping must be looked at more precisely and critically than has often been the case within the EC and individual countries. We must take that step if we are to achieve the development that we want in those countries because in the end it will be a great support to our own prosperity. The sooner those countries develop prosperous markets the greater will be the wealth that we shall gain from them.
In conclusion, I wish to make one or two reflections on my experience of 30 years ago. Aid and trade must be dealt with together. I then came to the conclusion, and now feel more strongly than ever, that the measure of the percentage of GNP devoted to aid is thoroughly phoney and should be given up as soon as possible. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is that aid has to be associated with trade. When I was a Minister all those years ago I was in no doubt that what was done at the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in trying to free trade did more good than all the aid that we were giving. My right honourable friend Sir Edward Heath was then President of the Board of Trade and played a notable part in that conference.
A country which is generous in giving aid and clocks up an enormous number of Brownie points in the percentage of GNP test but is mean in making its markets accessible to the produce of developing countries might do better to stop giving aid and to open up its markets. Trade is more important than aid. To judge what we, and other countries, do for developing countries as the size of our aid programme measured as a percentage of GNP is phoney for that reason.
It is also phoney for another reason. When I was a Minister I came to the conclusion, and I have not changed my mind, that by and large technical assistance is more valuable than capital assistance. It is much cheaper. A country which gives primary attention to providing technical assistance will spend less money than one which gives primary importance to providing capital aid. The country which gives primary importance to capital aid will clock up more Brownie points under the stupid measure of how well we serve developing countries; that is, by expressing its aid programme as a percentage of GNP.
I dearly wish that the international community could find some other factor which would be a truer indication of the help which different countries give to developing countries. I am not saying that because I wish to cover up our performance. I do not believe that we give enough assistance. It is not adequate and has not been so for 20 or 30 years. I should love to see that performance become more adequate. However, I am merely saying that we should not fall into the trap of believing that the percentage of GNP given in aid is the right way in which to measure what a country is doing to help developing countries; it is not.
When you have an old bee in your bonnet you can go on buzzing for too long. I had better stop it buzzing straightaway.

European Council, 10th–11th December
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the European Council in Brussels on 10th and 11th December. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last weekend's European Council, which I attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The task we set ourselves at this Council was to set Europe on a course towards economic recovery and the creation of new jobs.
"In Britain unemployment has been falling since January. But across the rest of the Community it has been rising; indeed, since the Edinburgh Council met a year ago one and a half million extra people have become unemployed. At Brussels, and in the White Paper Growth, Competitiveness, Employment, we considered how this could be reversed.
"The conclusions of the Council on the White Paper show that member states are now determined to pursue realistic, practical and market-orientated policies to improve Europe's competitiveness.
"In Brussels we agreed on the need for firm control of public spending and low inflation, open markets, deregulation, a more decentralised Europe, flexibility in labour markets and reductions in social costs, and the decisive role of private investment in generating economic growth. These conclusions are very welcome. They reflect policies that we have advocated at Council after Council. But a number of my fellow heads of government, and the European Commission itself, would have found many of the conclusions unthinkable only a few years ago. Outdated policies, involving extra burdens on business and extra borrowing to fund spending by the European Commission, were firmly rejected.
"Drawing on elements of the White Paper, the European Council agreed a common framework within which member states will consider measures aimed at improving the supply side performance of our economies. The emphasis on improved training and education, measures to reduce the costs of taking on new employees, deregulation at both Community and national level—all closely echoed the themes of my right honourable friend's Budget last month.
"I am glad to report to the House that the conclusions include the British proposal that Community and national legislation should be subjected to a test—an audit—of its effects on jobs. The European Council rejected the intrusive, damaging and defeatist notion of compulsory work-sharing.
"The European Council reaffirmed the conclusions it agreed at Edinburgh on the speedy completion of trans-European networks—infrastructure projects designed to improve the workings of the single market—supported by finance from the
1132
European Investment Bank. I am glad to say that the Council recognised the decisive role to be played by private investors in financing trans-European networks. Additional loans would only even be considered if there was evidence that priority projects were blocked for lack of finance. European finance Ministers have been asked to examine financing in more detail with the help of the European Investment Bank.
"The Council did not endorse the last-minute proposals brought forward for extra financing through so-called "union bonds" issued by the Community.
"There was firm agreement on the need to ensure that measures taken at Community level should not undermine domestic efforts by national governments to reduce their borrowing.
"A theme running through all our discussions was the need for a successful conclusion of the GATT round of trade talks. This would be, by far, the most important boost to international confidence and job creation. Independent estimates suggest that the economies of European countries would be the single biggest gainer from the Uruguay Round. Negotiations between the Community and the United States were continuing while the Council met. Sir Leon Brittan, the Council negotiator, is reporting to the Foreign Affairs Council this afternoon. We always knew the end game of these negotiations would be difficult. They are still going on. This is a hugely ambitious round of negotiations, covering 4.5 trillion dollars of international trade. Success is a prize worth fighting for.
"The Council discussed the internal implications of the GATT negotiations.
"The Council noted the Commission's assessment that the reformed CAP is compatible with the new commitments which would result from an agreement in GATT. Some delegations asked what the position would be if that judgment proved wrong. In debate the Council agreed, crucially, that if any additional measures were to prove necessary, they would not breach the financial ceilings agreed by the Edinburgh European Council.
"The European Council also endorsed an excellent work programme drawn up by home affairs and justice Ministers. In particular, it agreed to an Anglo-German proposal that the Europol drugs unit should be set up forthwith and that the Europol convention should be completed by December 1994. Community action in this area has a valuable contribution to make in the international fight against organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. This particular decision illustrates a new appreciation in the Community of a distinction we have long sought to make clear: between actions sensibly conducted in co-operation, and policies which are for national governments to decide. The principle of subsidiarity is now producing concrete results. In Brussels we secured agreement to repeal, withdraw or amend 17 directives out of a list of 24 put to the Commission jointly by the British and French governments. Other governments will now, I

1133
believe, follow suit. In particular, the German Government are pressing their own proposals to extend subsidiarity. The necessary procedures are in place to ensure that this process continues. We are determined to maintain high standards, but we are determined too to simplify European legislation, to make it less intrusive, and to leave more room for national choice.
"The European Council also discussed foreign policy issues. Foreign Ministers discussed the position in former Yugoslavia with Lord Owen. Although there has been some improvement in the delivery of humanitarian aid, obstacles to a political settlement in Bosnia remain. In a further effort towards peace foreign Ministers invited the parties to the conflict to a meeting in Brussels on 22nd December. As the winter sets in and the suffering of the population intensifies, we must continue to seek a political settlement, however difficult this will be.
"We also discussed the French Prime Minister's initiative for a pact on stability which aims to promote stability and regional co-operation in central and eastern Europe. A launch conference will be held in Paris in spring 1994.
"I also had a useful meeting with President Yeltsin, who subsequently met the European heads of state and government.
"At the summit the heads of government agreed that the only road to economic recovery is the one on which this Government are already embarked, with a year and a half of rising output already achieved. Low inflation, low interest rates, a reduction in industry's burdens and a lifting of the dead hand of regulation; these are the signposts to investment and jobs. Open markets bring new opportunities to exporters; free markets encourage enterprise and prosperity. Europe has a long way to go. But on this side of the House we will continue to point it in the right direction".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place.
The Statement is unrecognisable if one compares it with the conclusions of the summit. I choose my words carefully but I must say to the House that the Statement is grossly misleading in the way in which it presents those conclusions. I implore noble Lords to look at what the summit actually concluded and not merely listen to the Prime Minister's Statement.
Having listened to the Leader of the House repeating the Statement one would not have thought that the primary conclusion which came from the summit was:
"The European Council decided on this basis to implement an action plan based on specific measures at the levels of the Union and of the Member States directed at, in the short term, reversing the trend"—
that is, the trend of unemployment—
"and then, by the end of the century, significantly reducing the number of unemployed, at present standing at the unacceptable level of 17 million".
1134
That is the plan that they agreed. However, there is not a word in the Prime Minister's Statement about it.
Then one looks at the funding. I have with me the Prime Minister's Statement in which he says:
"Outdated policies, involving extra burdens on business and extra borrowing to fund spending by the European Commission, were firmly rejected".
That is all he said about funding. However, as regards funding the Council's conclusions were:
"With respect to funding, the Community's principal task is to ensure, by reducing the financial risks, that private investors will be involved to a greater extent in projects of European interest. The … role played by private investors will be supported by the Community in accordance with the procedures set out below".
But, what are they? First,
"the Community budget will supply some ECU 5 billion per annum from the "networks" budget heading, from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and research and development and appropriations".
So that is 5 billion ecu going to back the action plan. Secondly,
"the European Investment Bank, as part of its normal activities, and the European Investment Fund will contribute ECU 7 billion per annum in the form of loans and guarantees".
So that is 12 billion ecu so far to back up the action plan which the Prime Minister did not think important enough even to mention. Thirdly,
"the additional funding will be provided, as far as is necessary, to ensure that priority projects do not run into financial obstacles which will jeopardise their implementation. With this in mind, the European Council called upon the ECOFIN Council to study, together with the Commission and the EIB, procedures which would enable the mobilisation of up to an additional ECU 8 billion per annum in loans for operators involved in setting up networks".
As I see it, the actual amount of cash involved in backing up the action plan is 12 billion ecu in firm commitments per annum and another 8 billion ecu as a distinct possibility if it runs into financial obstacles. Frankly, I am a little surprised that the Prime Minister did not think it worth while to mention that in the Statement.
This side of the House welcomes the conclusions that were reached at the summit. If in fact they are implemented—and, despite the absence of any reference to it in the Statement, one assumes that the Government are sincere in wishing to implement what was agreed at the summit—we believe that they could make a significant impact on the levels of unemployment throughout the Community.
I should like to mention one further matter; namely, the social dialogue. The following is what the Prime Minister agreed to, although it is not mentioned in the Statement:
"The success of the action plan presupposes the commitment of all those involved to preserving social cohesion; this will be easier to achieve if a dialogue is established at all appropriate levels on the objectives to be pursued and the means to be employed. In this connection the European Council invites the Commission to continue its efforts to lead the social dialogue and to make full use, subject to the provisions of the Protocol annexed to the Treaty, of the new possibilities available under the Treaty on European Union, and calls upon both sides of industry to respond constructively".
When the Commission is pursuing a task that the Prime Minister and other leaders have set upon it (as set out in the above paragraph) will Britain be present, or do we leave the room when the social dialogue—which the action plan supposes the commitment of all those involved to preserving social cohesion to be a

1135
prerequisite of its success—is discussed? Are we to be a party to those discussions or will there be this farce of our leaving the room while the other members of the Community get on with discussing something which the Prime Minister agreed in Brussels this weekend is important? Are we or are we not to be part of it?
I am sorry that I have spoken with some heat on the matter, and I apologise if I have, perhaps, gone further than I wished. However, since I received the Presidency Conclusions at about 1.30 p.m. today, and the Prime Minister's Statement about 30 or 40 minutes ago, I must say that the immediate impact I experienced on comparing the two, in the brief time available, was such that I felt it right to warn Members of the House that they should not rely upon the Prime Minister's Statement.
As regards the European Council, I think that it took some major steps which, if implemented, will have an effect. I believe that what it said about foreign policy was, on the whole, probably right. So far as I am concerned, I wish success to the possibility of the launch conference for the new pact. As a piece of preventive diplomacy (which is what the Council agreed that it was) I hope that it will be successful. Finally, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that we shall have the presidency of the Council in 1998 and then not until the year 2006?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am bound to say that I believe there is considerable force in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the Statement contains an unusually heavy British Government gloss. Of course, we are always told not to believe everything that we read in the press, but my experience of European Councils—which extended over quite a number of years—was that one should also be cautious about believing the briefings put out by individual heads of government. The skilled press can quite often give a more accurate picture of the residue of what has taken place than what heads of government, not only the British, wish to present to their own countries and electorate.
The impression that the Statement left on me is that, whatever one might have expected beforehand, the outcome of the summit was at least as great a success for M. Delors as it was for Mr. Major. I am not sure that I see the point from a British interest of what one might describe as this "horizontal heavyweight approach" to European Councils beforehand which, apart from anything else, does not really suit the Prime Minister's style.
I have used the phrase "horizontal heavyweight". It means that you take up a strongly adversarial position, announce that you are going to slaughter your opponent but then, when you get there and discover that there is a lot of solid support behind him, you let him have a good part of his way. The process on this occasion was accompanied by a few saloon-bar aphorisms from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all admire the brio of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which indeed makes a welcome and happy change from that of many of his colleagues. However, we may sometimes be a little less
1136
enthusiastic about his flippancies from the sidelines, especially when dealing with important international gatherings.
Incidentally, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House enlighten me on something about which I am a little puzzled? What is now the composition of the European Council? In particular, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer there as a participant or was his presence more in the nature of a supporting fan, anxious to keep up the British tradition in that respect? In my day, European Councils were composed only of the head of state of government and the foreign minister of each participating country. As there were only nine countries at that time and as the President of the Commission and one other Commissioner were present, that meant that there were only 20 people, plus one official, in the room supporting the presidency. That made it a very intimate gathering and gave it a purpose quite distinct from that of the Council of Ministers. However, if it is now the case that we are to have three Ministers present, and as there will be a a large degree of enlargement, it will soon become not a conclave but, following the route of the Council of Ministers, another gathering of 100 people or more which will completely change the nature of it.
I believe that many of us will welcome the thrust which came from the European Council to try—and it is not an easy problem—to deal constructively with the deadening problem of unemployment which affects Europe. I hope that the Government will not take the narrow little position that all that has to be done to deal with unemployment is to adopt the policies of the British Government.
It is perfectly true that we are coming out of the recession earlier than other countries. But that is largely because we went into the recession earlier, and indeed deeper, than other countries. All these policies which the British Government believe, or purport to believe, are the full answer to unemployment were policies which the British Government pursued—at least I understood they said they were pursuing them—throughout the 1980s. Throughout that decade our unemployment record was consistently one of the worst within the European Community. I ask the Government to adopt a more constructive approach and to be a little less complacent about the effect which a difference in the phasing of the trade cycle makes to our position compared with that of our allies.
Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us anything more up to date about the GATT negotiations? These are becoming rather a cliff-hanger. I do not know whether the intention is to keep up our pre-Christmas interest or whether the situation really is fluctuating. It would clearly be a tragedy if at this stage, after everything we have been through, success were to elude us, given the importance of the negotiations—I entirely endorse that—and the relative narrowness of the differences.
I wish, through the noble Lord the Leader of the House, to send a message of warm appreciation to Sir Leon Brittan who has played a notable role in bringing the process to its current stage. It is a task to which his

1137
exceptional talent is perhaps better suited than some of the other roles he has discharged. He deserves our full support in a difficult and delicate task.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, at least for some of the comments they made. I shall do my best to reply. I do not accept for a single minute that the Statement is in any way misleading or that it gives a one sided account of the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Brussels.
Indeed, it is a particular tribute to my right honourable friend to recall just how much the thinking of the heads of government in Europe has changed in recent years as a result of his persuasion and arguments. I do not believe that the Statement is misleading. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, may not be entirely clear about the figures that he mentioned. As regards the 5 billion ecu of structural and cohesion funds, the 7 billion ecu from the European Investment Bank, and the additional 8 billion ecu to be provided as necessary, the first two of those tranches constitute the budgetary provision that was agreed at the Edinburgh Council. The essence of the Brussels negotiations was that the sums would not be increased. Nevertheless there was a provision that we would consider the third additional provision if necessary. The conclusions state:
"The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by the Member States to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets".
On the social dialogue, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, again quoted some of the conclusions but I am not sure he mentioned everything that is relevant. The Commission's White Paper is clear on the issue. It states explicitly that in each country the methods of social dialogue will reflect national traditions. That is how it must continue to be. The conclusions refer to the continued use of the social dialogue,
"subject to the provisions of the Protocol annexed to the Treaty"
to which the United Kingdom is not a party. In my understanding, that means we will certainly be part of those discussions but because of the protocol we will not necessarily be bound by them in those areas where we made reservations at Maastricht.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, also asked about the presidency. He is correct that under the revised rotation the next UK presidency will be in 1998. However, we are agreeing only one rotation at this point, so the subsequent presidency is uncertain and will depend, for example, on how many more countries join the Union as it enlarges.
I turn now to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. This is, I believe, the first time that I have had an opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord in this House on his receipt of the Order of Merit. I am sure that that has given enormous pleasure to Members on all sides of the House. The noble Lord speaks with great authority in these matters but I am not sure that he was entirely fair in his comments. One difficulty—I believe that it was the subject of at least one remark by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was that the White Paper which, it was originally thought, might have been the subject of some
1138
decisions at Brussels, arrived at a late hour. That made it difficult to hold proper consultation on the full range of matters and to reach decisions at the time. I believe my right honourable friend said that it would have been better if the White Paper had been published a little earlier.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer attends economic discussions at European Councils on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty which makes clear that finance Ministers should be involved in discussions on Article 103 guidelines.
The noble Lord asked whether I could say anything more about the GATT talks. I agree with those who feel that a successful conclusion of the GATT round overshadows almost everything else we are dealing with at present. I wish I could be specific and say what the position is at this moment. I shall give your Lordships as much information as I have. My noble friend Lady Chalker will give any update she can when she responds to the debate that has been interrupted by the Statement.
The position, as I understand it, is that the director general, Mr. Sutherland, achieved agreement on most of the Uruguay Round text earlier today. Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kantor were meeting this morning. My right honourable friend Douglas Hurd is in Brussels for the Foreign Affairs Council meeting to which the Commission will report this afternoon. I have heard of no major stumbling blocks but there are a number of big issues still to be resolved. I agree that it would be disastrous if any of those difficulties were allowed to stand in the way of an agreement before the 15th December deadline.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say a little more about what is obviously the most important of all the issues arising from the Statement—that is, the outcome of the GATT discussions? Will he comment in particular on the truth of a statement in the press that there is a time limit; that is to say, a date by which agreement has to be obtained, or it will not be obtained at all and the process will lapse? Is there a time limit? And is the main obstacle still the attitude of France to the agricultural issue?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asks me to comment a little further on the position with regard to GATT. As I understand the position, the 15th December deadline for agreement is necessary if the fast track approach which the United States has adopted is to be used to implement the agreement. Thus it would be a major setback if we were not able to achieve an agreement by 15th December. At Brussels the European Council agreed expressly that any changes resulting from the GATT deal should not alter the financing arrangements agreed at Edinburgh. That is important, particularly in relation to the question of any possible changes in the CAP.
So far as concerns the outstanding issues, my information—which may not be absolutely up to date—is that it is not agriculture which is the problem. I understand that there are difficulties in relation to audio-visual arrangements, on which there is an

1139
agreement between the EC and the United States recognising the special nature of the US audio-visual sector. That problem has been reduced to a small number of issues. There is a question concerning textiles which has not yet been settled. I understand also that there are outstanding questions regarding the aerospace industry. That is the latest position, but it is a fast-moving scene and the situation may well have changed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Lord a little further on the question that was raised by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter relating specifically to the last paragraph of the statement issued after the conclusion of the conference. Apropos of agriculture, it states:
"It would, if necessary, take the necessary steps for the application of the reform while respecting the financial decisions of the Edinburgh European Council".
The implication of what the noble Lord said is that at the conclusion of the Council that was the position.
Suppose the negotiations continue and we press on towards 15th December and still no agreement is reached. Will the noble Lord give the House an unequivocal undertaking that, regardless of the progress of those negotiations and the possibility that they might fail on 15th December, Her Majesty's Government will on no account increase the British contribution to the European budget in order to bail out the position of the French?
My next question arises from the text of the document itself. Unusually, I agree with my noble friend Lord Richard that it differs materially from the Statement made by the Government. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to the text of the conclusions and the heading:
"The fight against unemployment—the action plan".
When I read that I looked at the rest with bated breath. What did I find? I found that that was varied some paragraphs later by the statement that:
"The primary purpose of the action plan is to reinforce the competitiveness of the European economy".
That is slightly different from the main priority being the reduction of unemployment. It rests on the highly questionable supposition that the reduction of unemployment depends on an increase in the competitiveness of European industry. That is an assumption which is by no means proven.
The third point arises in connection with the additional 8 per cent., to which the noble Lord correctly referred as the additional funds likely to be made available by way of investment to aid the general investment programme. The text of the communiqué reads:
"With this in mind, the European Council called upon the ECOFIN Council to study, together with the Commission and the EIB, procedures which would enable the mobilisation of an additional ECU 8 billion per annum in loans for operators involved in setting up networks".
The important qualification is that:
"The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by the Member States to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets".
1140
I interpret the words "should not" as meaning that they ought not to rather than that they will fulfil the conditions laid down in the communiqué. Perhaps the noble Lord will reply.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I apologise if the noble Lord had difficulty in obtaining a correct copy of the conclusions in English from the Printed Paper Office earlier today. As he will see from the document, the page from which he quoted is in a different typescript from the rest of the document. That is because there was some difficulty in agreeing the English translation of the French conclusions. It was important that we got it right. It was not until 12 o'clock this morning that the version from which the noble Lord quoted was accepted as a correct translation of what had been agreed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, was that not the correct translation?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord had the correct translation and quoted from it. I apologise if it was not available to him at the time it was available to me or to anybody else.
I believe that the conclusions are quite clear. The European Council agreed at the weekend that any settlement had to be within the existing budgetary constraints. I do not have any authority to go further or to say that anything more will happen. Whatever I may say about what may be agreed in the future will not necessarily bind anybody. Therefore, I shall say no more except that I believe that the Statement is clear: this is the budget, and there will be no settlement of GATT, particularly in relation to the common agricultural policy, which will run counter to the guidelines that have been agreed.
As regards the question of unemployment, I am prepared to accept that it is controversial if the noble Lord tells me that it is controversial. However, I take the view that one of the best ways of creating jobs in the European Community is for the European Community to be competitive. I believe very strongly in competitive industry. Therefore, I do not accept the contradistinction between providing jobs and becoming competitive. We set out in the Statement what was agreed. I do not need to repeat it. The agreements are all concerned with making us more competitive and creating more jobs.
The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of additional funds. In view of the reference that has been made to the statement, I am delighted that the extract which the noble Lord quoted was exactly the same as the one I quoted, namely:
"The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by the Member States to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets".
Again, that was a firm declaration by the heads of government at the meeting. I have absolutely no reason to think that they did not mean what they said. I would not expect that to change.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as one who is firmly pro-European but suspicious of the ambitions and aggrandisement of the Commission, perhaps I may ask these questions. First, was any explanation given why the White Paper was tabled too late for a proper

1141
consideration? Secondly, does not the White Paper contain, as the CBI reaction suggests, some variable ideas as well as some unacceptable ones? Thirdly, is it not out of the question to allow the Commission to have control of such vast sums—nearly £100 billion—in view of its financial record and its virtual irresponsibility at this stage of function? Therefore is not the urgent task now institutional reform of the Community, first, to inscribe firmly, permanently and effectively the principle of subsidiarity; and, secondly, to bring the Commission under effective control?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord asks me a number of specific questions. I shall do my best to answer in so far as I can.
First, I accept that the White Paper was delivered too late. The most likely explanation is that the Commission was trying hard to get as much agreement as possible, before the meeting of the European Council. There was a considerable change from the first to the last draft of the White Paper. There was much in the Commission White Paper with which we agree about improving flexibility of labour markets and cutting costs. We also welcome the recognition by the Commission in the White Paper that action is primarily a matter for member states.
We had considerable doubts along the lines suggested by the noble Lord about the Commission raising a large amount of money by what I think are called union bonds, and a number of other member states shared those doubts. Substantial financial resources have already been agreed and we were not persuaded that more were needed.
We had a good discussion at the European Council on subsidiarity. There was an extensive review of the application of the subsidiarity principle and the recommendation that some 25 per cent. of the Commission's legislation should be considered again. The Council welcomed the report and called for early proposals to put the recommendations into effect. I believe that many other member states will be looking more seriously at the scope for improvements under that heading, which is now an established feature of the European Commission.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again but it is an important issue. Page 4 of the conclusions states:
"The European Council considers that the White Paper, whose quality it stressed and which served as a basis for its discussions, contains a lucid analysis of the present economic and social situation of the Union and constitutes a reference point for future work".
That was the Council's view of the White Paper. With regard to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the view of the Government?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, absolutely. I do not disagree with that; nor have I heard anyone else who disagrees with it. I do not believe that I have heard anyone seriously complain about the analysis of the present economic and social situation.
There were considerable degrees of doubt on the reference for future work, and there was a late
1142
circulation of the paper in order to achieve an agreement on that issue. That was a pity, but it was probably for the best reasons.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that with regard to subsidiarity the Prime Minister's Statement justifies the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, about an element of gloss? My noble friend gave the answer that because one or two other members at the summit expressed doubts about whether the White Paper had merit, that justified the working of subsidiarity. Are we to understand that subsidiarity goes no further than allowing members to express doubt?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend is being unfair. Perhaps I may give him one example. The Commission agreed with the overwhelming majority of the 24 items on the Anglo-French subsidiarity list. It agreed I think it was 17 out of the 24. Two others are still being considered. That does not indicate to me that either the Commission or the member states are treating subsidiarity as other than an important development.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I still am not satisfied with the Minister's reply relating to this 8 billion ecu or £6 billion, I believe it is, per annum in loans for various works. The document states:
"The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by member states to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets".
The word "should" seems to me a little weak; it means that the possibility could run counter to such efforts. Perhaps I may have the assurance of the noble Lord the Leader of the House that there is absolutely no possibility that the Finance Ministers will agree to the Commission being allowed to raise money through bonds or in any other way; and that if an attempt is made to do so the British Government will oppose it, even to the extent of a veto?
My second question relates to reports that the British voting strength is likely to be diluted when others decide to join the Community. Is that so? If so, how will it operate to our detriment?
Finally, was the plan by M. Delors to make the President of the Commission President of Europe, elected by the European Parliament, discussed either formally or informally? If it was, what was the answer of the British Government?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord always entertains me when he asks questions. Member states, the Commission and everyone else are not immune from the politics of the world as we know them, with which the noble Lord has lived throughout his life. By and large there are socialists who wish to spend a lot of extra money and those on this side of the House and in equivalent Chambers who tend to wish to preserve taxpayers' money and to keep public spending down. I find it pleasantly amusing to hear the noble Lord being so critical of a suggestion which I suspect many of his confreres on the Continent would welcome enormously.
However, the position is clear. We have quoted many times the passage which states:

1143
"The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by member states to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets".
There has been no agreement to increase spending by such an amount. It will require another European Council meeting to agree it. As I understand it, the British Government have not been persuaded of the necessity for an increase. The issue will be considered by Finance Ministers, and no doubt we shall take part fully in those discussions. But I see no reason to believe that our conclusions will be different. However, persuasive arguments may be deployed which may persuade even the noble Lord that change is right.
On the effect on enlargement of the British position so far as concerns voting, as I understand it, where there is unanimity that is still the position. Where there is qualified majority voting in the new circumstances, some changes will have to be made; but nothing has so far been agreed.
With regard to the President of the Commission being the President of Europe, there was nothing in my briefing in French or English, either in or between the lines, which indicated to me that that was discussed in any way at any time. However, there are many people at Brussels. It is possible that someone did discuss it, but word has not reached me.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is time to move on as 20 minutes have elapsed.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Front Benches take up at least 25 minutes—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, perhaps I may explain the position to my noble friend. After the Statement has been made, the Front Benches have asked their questions and I have done my best to respond, there are 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions. That is the rule which the House set down. Obviously, it can be changed if the House thinks differently, but while that is the rule we ought to stick to it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is next, should now speak.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may just say this about a very important Statement. Some of us waited patiently while our elders and betters got in. I wished to ask a simple question on something important; I shall not ask it now because obviously it would be out of order. However, on an issue as important as this, cannot the usual channels allow slightly more than 20 minutes? It is not too much to ask, say, for half an hour.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend asks a reasonable question. I shall see that the appropriate committee considers the point.

EC Development Aid: ECC Reports
4.31 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a compensation to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, perhaps I may say that the debate
1144
which was interrupted for the Statement also concerns Europe. He may care to listen; in fact I was expecting him to speak in the debate because overseas aid is one of his interests.
As a member of neither sub-committee I speak with some diffidence. Both reports are full of interest and make sense of complex issues. Personally, I found both of them to be of great educational value, for which I wish to thank members of both sub-committees and the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
I believe that I now know the difference between an MFN (a most favoured nation) and the MFA (the Multi-Fibre Arrangement). I know the difference between the CAP (the common agricultural policy) and the ACP (the African, Caribbean and Pacific states covered by the Lomé conventions). Another layer of fog has been lifted from my mind to help my understanding of the inner workings of the EC and its many directors-general. However, visibility is still not too good in that department.
I should have liked to read all the evidence, much of it fascinating, but some is heavy going and time did not allow me to read it all. However, reading the verbatim accounts of witnesses brings the subject to life, sometimes quite sharply. I feel that the evidence given by the NGOs and academics makes for much better reading than that given by civil servants, who have to watch over their shoulders and of course are past masters of "officialese".
To sift the evidence, we are reliant on and indebted to the Select Committee and its specialist advisers, and it is their summary and conclusions to which we need to pay attention. I shall try to refer to each report in turn, but as there is considerable overlap, it is possible to cover both, I hope logically, in the same speech.
In the debate on the Queen's Speech, I quoted the second conclusion of the committee on paragraph 65(b) of the first report:
"We are concerned about the potential serious effect on the United Kingdom's own bilateral programme of the decision to increase EC aid without knowing whether there will be a corresponding increase in the ODA's budget which finances both our share of the EC's programme and also our own bilateral programme. There is a risk of an unacceptable squeeze on our bilateral programme".
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already emphasised that conclusion.
I am not against the European Community being involved in overseas aid. There may be types of aid to which it is particularly suited. Here I think of emergency relief, provided it is not used as a way to get rid of food mountains. But if our own carefully built up value-for-money programmes are to be damaged in the process, the EC commitment will do more harm than good. To expand EC aid to less developed countries would be much easier to justify if it were in the context of an overall expansion of aid. When the total is static, however, we are in a difficult situation. Here I should like to quote from the evidence given to the committee by Simon Maxwell from the Institute of Development Studies of Sussex University, on page 57 of the first report,
"Britain already devotes close to twice as great a share of its aid programme to EC aid as other major donors; around 23 per cent.",

1145
of the British aid budget goes to EC aid, as compared to an average of 13.5 per cent. for other European countries.
"The reason for this is the stagnation of our total aid budget, in circumstances in which we are committed to contributing a standard share (around 17 per cent.) of a growing EC programme.
Given other multilateral demands on the British programme, notably the UN and the World Bank, the result of the growth of the EC programme has been a major squeeze on the British bilateral programme. This has shrunk by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979, compared to a reduction of only (!) 15 per cent. for the aid programme as a whole.
There is beginning to be a serious question about the critical mass of the bilateral programme, which any further expansion of the EC programme could make acute—unless, of course, total British aid were increased more than proportionately".
That section of his evidence is entitled,
"Fattypuffs and Thinifers in the debate about European aid".
I should be surprised if any member of the Select Committee, or any Member of your Lordships' House for that matter, is not deeply concerned about the effect on our own overseas aid programme of this diversion to the European Community, Quite apart from the bilateral aid which the ODA carries out in co-operation with the governments of developing countries, there is the question of support for the non-governmental organisations, both United Kingdom and overseas-based. Under the noble Baroness's guidance, that support has greatly increased over the past few years because of their ability to do such a good, well-targeted job at field level.
Looking at the evidence, it was suggested that non-governmental organisations should perhaps be encouraged to apply to the European Community instead of to the UK for support. Perhaps I may quote from the noble Baroness's evidence at page 39 of the first report:
"One of the most valuable things that we get from British NGOs is their relationship sometimes with local NGOs in the recipient country. Where there is that sort of twinning and the relationship in the delivery of aid is also sound, I can say that the Commission would do well to allow the NGOs to be the implementer of the Commission funds in that country".
Is that perhaps a hint that NGOs should look to Europe for their money?
Evidence from the non-governmental organisations themselves —for instance, Save the Children Fund—is that obtaining funds from the EC is a long drawn out and tedious process. However good are the sentiments that they should work with NGOs, in fact the money often comes so late that it is inappropriate by the time it arrives, if it comes at all. The good working relationships which many non-governmental organisations have built up, as I quoted earlier, and which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, are not to be brushed aside. They should be developed further. Will the cut in funding for bilateral aid include cuts in the joint funding schemes for non-governmental organisations? That is not quite clear. That is the only area of the overseas budget —the one to NGOs—which has been expanding.
On the subject of joint funding, the noble Baroness is aware that she agreed to fund at 100 per cent. those NGOs engaged in direct family planning activities. Will NGOs which now do not carry out family planning activities per se but which agree to start to do so, and thus qualify for 100 per cent. funding for that part of their programme, lose funding from other parts of their programme? Those other parts of their programme may
1146
include areas of community development which in the long term are equally if not more important in stabilising population. It would be a pity to rob Peter to pay Paul—or in this case to rob Petra to pay Paula.
Continuing the subject of family planning, in her evidence the noble Baroness said that, although a resolution on family planning was passed by the Council of Ministers last November,
"the exact position of who does what is more fluid than the policy setting".
I quote her own words. Has any further progress been made? I suggest that there is a good case for the EC to support the work of the established international organisations such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities—although I am not sure whether the EC can support a United Nations organisation directly—or the non-governmental organisations which are co-ordinated by the IPPIF.
Finally, as the report suggests, all overseas aid should be handled by one DG. That point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I am still baffled by the way in which the system of directorates-general was set up. It does not seem to be parallel with the ministerial pattern of any country. Despite my scepticism, I remain basically a pro-European (I see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, leaving the Chamber having heard that remark).
I have spent more time talking about aid than trade because aid is closer to my area of knowledge. But I fully realise that in the long term trade is more important. Aid must be regarded as assisting countries to join the world economic community in a self-sustaining role. As the table on page 17 of the second report shows, even the 25 largest recipients of aid, which are quite poor countries and received 3.2 billion dollars of EC aid, earned by exports to the EC 40 billion dollars. That is a rough calculation that I have made—the total is not given on the table—that is, 12½ times as much as they received in aid. Even nations in abject poverty or in the midst of civil war earned almost as much as they received in aid.
Money earned by exports does not always result in the relief of poverty or in building up the social and material infrastructure needed for developing countries to become self-sustaining. Too high a proportion, especially in Africa, goes on the servicing of international debt. Also, some of it lands up in Swiss Banks or is spent on quite inappropriate imports of consumer goods. That is an aspect which will not be improved by GATT, if the agreement is ever concluded. Let me here point to India as an example. India has managed to avoid building up an international debt because it has been quite tough on what it allows to be imported. When GATT is concluded it will have to import consumer goods which will compete with its own industries and which it probably does not need.
The committee rightly felt that debt was outside its remit. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Nevertheless, it recognised its importance and recommended that it should be considered by a Select Committee. I fully support that recommendation. Lifting the burden of debt would do more lasting good than most overseas aid. But even then there would still be a need for aid but the aid could be much more

1147
appropriately targeted. It could be targeted to help countries' economic progress and not so much directed to the relief of distress and abject poverty.
Much of the report on aid and trade concentrates on the effect of trade barriers and partial relief from them through a variety of mechanisms. Those are quite complex and numerous. But the imminent conclusion of the Uruguay Round—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that we might have that for a Christmas present—will in fact overlie all those mechanisms and supersede them. However, the committee estimated that the Lomé countries stand to lose from 90 million to 120 million ecus if the GATT is concluded. The World Bank estimated that there are likely to be losses of 7 billion dollars for the poorest countries because of the changes in GATT.
It is no wonder that the poorer countries do not join in the general euphoria about GATT and the increase in world trade that will result from it. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, compensation for those losses should surely be available in the form of new preferences, appropriately targeted.
In conclusion, I am very much concerned about the possible effects on poor farmers in the third world as a result of the free availability of low priced and subsidised food products from efficient farms in the developed world. I gather that the CAP will still be able, even under GATT, to operate to some extent and undercut the products of developing countries. I quote from the second report:
"The CAP is holding back the development of agriculture in the LDCs, and without that development no other development is possible".
Here I echo the words of Sir Edward Boyle, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I suggest that a more radical overhaul of the CAP is urgently necessary so as to stop its harmful effects on some of the poorest people in developing countries.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, let me start by paying two tributes. My first is to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who chaired the two committees and managed to pull together the difficult subjects of aid and trade and to focus the committee on producing the report in a way which, I hope, we can understand and sensibly debate. My second is to all those many hundreds of dedicated people who work in what I call the aid business and who devote their time and a great deal of their own resources to helping people in poor areas. They do great work. Any criticisms made of the overseas aid are not meant to be a reflection on them. Many gave evidence to us and many of us met others from time to time in various capacities.
There must be some anxiety in regard to the number of institutions that exist in what one might call the aid field. Quite apart from the 12 national organisations within the Community—it is there where our attention was mainly focused; in our case it is the ODA—and apart from the EC itself, a large number of non-governmental organisations exist. Outside Europe we have the World Bank, the IMF and so forth. It is a
1148
great credit to them that they do not end up tripping over themselves the whole time. Often, because one of the aid bodies happens to be sited with an office and staff in a specific country, it manages to create an organisation locally to face an emergency or build up an infrastructure. However, it is a chancy business. I find it hard to understand why we do not see more duplication or omission—for instance, thousands of blankets arriving but no tents—but somehow—perhaps by the "old boy" network—with a certain amount of co-ordination from the nations concerned, and particularly the ODA, those problems do not arise as often as one may imagine.
An attempt has been made to pull some of those together in Europe by the office of ECHO—European Communities and Humanitarian Office—to which my noble friend Lord Hunt referred. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who visited Brussels and met representatives from ECHO. It is obvious that it is at a fairly early stage and those involved are perhaps a little green in what they are doing. I felt that there was a certain resentment about its role—it is neither one thing nor the other.
The Community is described as the 13th donor. There is confusion among the directorates—again referred to by my noble friend Lord Hunt. It is slow to make decisions; it tends to be bureaucratic. On my visit I was impressed by the trouble both it and the Court of Auditors took to see us and explain what they were doing; what the aims and difficulties were. It is sad to contrast that keenness with the reluctance of the MEPs to present themselves or make any sensible case at all, with certain exceptions. I felt that the lack of enthusiasm showed by the MEPs in what is an important subject was disappointing. Their enthusiasm appeared merely to be to recount the visits that they had made to various countries in the course of their duties. But perhaps that is an unfair criticism and no doubt my noble friend will know better than I how hard they work.
Many NGOs appeared unhappy about some projects led by the EC. They complained that there was difficulty in obtaining decisions and funds. They felt much happier and progressed much better when the projects came under the ODA. That was encouraging in one way—one likes to hear support for the ODA—but it was disappointing to know that the EC is presenting a number of difficulties.
That is emphasised by what is happening with the increase in the Community funds allocated to aid. Within a given figure the more that is hived off into the Community central organisation the less there is left for the ODA. If that is carried too far it can result in the ODA ceasing to be economically viable or being able effectively to perform the tasks which it has been doing efficiently for many years.
I shall not rehearse the arguments on the question of bilateral aid. They appear in the reports. There is a tendency by many people to downgrade bilateral aid. However, it provides substantial benefits, often due to the historical connection. A country may have a colonial background but the historic connection plays a part in obtaining mutual understanding and thus speedier decisions are reached. There is a great deal to commend

1149
bilateral aid, though I recognise, as the report makes clear, that there are disadvantages. Having said that, we should take care not to sweep too many of the resources which are available for aid into the central organisation, either in Europe or elsewhere.
I was somewhat intrigued to hear from the NGOs that their main interest was not the treatment of emergencies but the building up of long-term development, such as in agriculture, to try to prevent the emergencies with which they had had to deal from recurring. Of course, it is the emergencies which strike the headlines. It is the banners about thousands of starving women and children which hit the headlines that also refill the coffers of many charities. But, quite rightly, their main effort and work is to the longer term; to deal with the problems that they foresee if agriculture and so forth is not generated within those countries.
Perhaps I can deal briefly with trade—I say "briefly" because a great deal must depend on the outcome of GATT. At present massive anomalies arise in relation to trade preferences. Some are largely historic and bear little relation to anything that currently should be applied. Then we have terms like "most favoured nation" which often means the least favoured nation. Often those nations that receive little trade preference of any kind, by virtue of that, struggle through and make a success of their economies while those which receive most aid do not make the same kind of progress.
A feature which appears from time to time in the trade aspect is protectionism; for example, the rules of origin. They were introduced so that a country which was growing a raw material could obtain a tariff preference when importing those materials into the developed world. But if that same country started to manufacture, whether utilising material it was growing itself, material from the next state or a combination of the two, then those tariff preferences were lost. The country was penalised. It must be in our interests that those countries we wish to help and bring on are encouraged to develop and process the materials that they grow rather than being penalised when that is done.
Apart from the technical preferences, there are quotas, voluntary agreements, non-tariff barriers and so forth, many of which vastly exceed the impact of tariffs on what happens. There are also elements of self-interest by developed countries which appear seriously to damage some of the lesser developed countries. Reference was made to that this afternoon in relation to agriculture and the so-called "Brussels beef carve-up" to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred. It is worth briefly recalling what happened. The main exporting CAP countries—France and the Netherlands —managed to export large quantities of low grade beef to West Africa. However, they received the same subsidy for exporting that low grade—what is called "side beef' with up to 50 per cent. fat—as though it were prime rump steak. The result was that the poor West African farmers who had been struggling to rear and sell their own stock were unable to face competition—poor though the beef may have been—coming in at a price that made beef production quite uneconomic for them. We, the members of the Community, are paying funds not to help the West
1150
Africans but to enable, in this case, the French, the Dutch and others to export their low grade beef to West Africa and to put out of business West African farmers. That cannot be right. I know that it is one of the matters that is being considered and perhaps will be dealt with in the Uruguay Round. It is a feature of something that has been there. I hope that it is an exceptional one and that there are not too many more of them. But I rather fear that there may be.
Finally, the more I hear of trade policies designed to help those in need the more I become convinced that most of them should be scrapped and that we should start again. There is a certain amount of historic nonsense in so many of them. Perhaps the GATT agreement, if we get it through in the next few days, will provide the answer and a satisfactory solution. I certainly hope so.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, noble Lords have dealt with this matter very thoroughly indeed. I find myself in agreement with much of what they said. That enables me, except in one or two small instances, to forgo going over the same ground.
I cannot let the occasion pass without paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and the committee's permanent staff for the way these questions have been dealt with. Based on my professional experience I calculate that the noble Lord spent at least 35 hours in the committee cross-examining—or should I say examining—witnesses. On the basis that every hour of examination takes at least two hours' preparation by the chairman of the committee concerned he must have spent a further 15 hours on the deliberations. And reading all the papers must have taken at least another 175 hours of his time, including thinking time. On the basis of a conventional calculation of professional fees for a senior qualified clerk in a firm of chartered accountants, that should have netted him some £22,500, instead of which he has had to be content, like the rest of us, with a daily attendance allowance. I pay tribute, as a Eurosceptic, to the structure of the reports and their contents.
There has been general agreement that aid from the United Kingdom in one form or another, either through the EEC or through direct aid, probably typifies more than anything the aim of "back to basics" which is so often mooted these days. Going back to basics means going back to justice, honour, decency and compassion. That is what back to basics means. It has nothing to do with free market forces. The aid that we provide, in whatever form it is provided, typifies a return to those basic values which I believe most noble Lords share and which at any rate all political parties profess to share. That is against the background of a United Nations obligation to devote 0.7 per cent. of GDP to aiding developing countries—a course of action advocated most vehemently from time to time and with great eloquence by my noble friend Lord Judd, who is to speak in the debate. At present we are devoting around 0.35 per cent. of GDP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is extremely clever: I do not mean "clever" in the nasty sense. She

1151
has said something that is probably true but quite unprovable. As the noble Baroness emphasises always—and very properly—it is the quality and not the quantity that matters. No one in your Lordships' House can challenge that assertion. No one would query in the slightest the noble Baroness's sincerity and purpose in carrying out the duties of her office in that respect. I pay my tribute to her on that account alone.
Mind you, there are certain difficulties. Not all the aid classified under the aid and trade provisions is sent out with the same purpose. The committee had the opportunity to consider a slight deviation from the procedure evidently adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I do not seek to introduce a note of undue controversy or to detract from anything the noble Baroness has done when I refer in particular to a Written Answer of 28th October. It appeared on a Thursday and therefore would not have been read, if at all, until the Friday. The Question asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to list each individual scheme which received financial assistance under aid and trade provisions since the programme began. I have to inform the House that there was a project amounting to some £306 million in Malaysia which went to Balfour Beatty. It was a considerable electrification scheme. It did not meet with the approval of the Foreign Office. In fact it was specifically said that it did not have the approval of the Foreign Office. Indeed, the Foreign Office recommended that it should not be done—more particularly since it accounted for more than half the aid contributed during that year, 1991. The answer was that the approval came from a higher authority.
It might be wise to have the matter cleared up quickly. I know that the noble Baroness was not responsible, but as we did not have time to touch upon it in the committee, noble Lords will perhaps forgive me for raising the question today. We would like to know who overruled what the ODA thought was the right thing to do. I have no doubt that I shall receive a reply and I trust that the question will be answered in the same spirit in which it is asked. It is not sought to bring any kind of blame, directly or indirectly, upon the noble Baroness. But we would like to know who authorised no less than £306 million. It is no small matter when we are supposed to be suffering a very considerable degree of financial stringency. My noble friend Lord Judd would certainly not object if that amount had been put in the correct perspective as regards overseas aid and trade so that we could bring up our contribution more towards the level which we undertake to give. But it was not that at all. It was devoted to one project, the usefulness of which, from the aid and trade standpoint, could not be officially endorsed by the Foreign Office itself.
Much has been said with which I entirely agree; namely, the apparent conflict between our contribution to the European Community budget which in turn is passed on to the various projects directly and the aid provided by the Government themselves directly and in collaboration with non-governmental agencies. On the basis of the evidence submitted to us, I do not think that any member of the committee could fail to agree that direct government ODA aid from ourselves, working
1152
with non-governmental organisations operating in the field, was the most effective and that aid channelled through the Community did not ultimately achieve quite the same result.
Some may be tempted to ask the question: how did the Commission become involved at all? It started before Maastricht. We were not blessed or cursed, as the case may be, with concepts of ever-closer European union and all that kind of bureaucratic nonsense. It was at a time when we were seeking to co-operate in establishing the single market, the free trade area and so on. There was no obvious reason, other than the wish to get their infernal bureaucratic feet into the picture, for the Commission to become active in this matter at all.
I would not dissent from the fact that some members of the committee advocated the amalgamation of DG VIII and DG I within the Commission structure. That might have some result. In all, the committee felt—I would not wish to misrepresent it in any way—that the Government's attitude towards the whole question was on very sound lines. I say that with some regret because coalitions between myself and Her Majesty's Government are a little unusual. But certainly we believe that that was right.
There can be no doubt that the efforts made by all the countries involved, and by the Commission, have resulted in very significant benefits being conferred on developing countries. I want to leave noble Lords with a contrast. There are people on all sides of the House who are still in the first degrees of innocence. They really believe that bankers are the benefactors of mankind. So much so that they even want bankers to determine the parameters within which our economic destinies may progressively unfold.
Let us contrast the aid provided out of taxpayers' pockets —including those who pay VAT, and not only those who pay income tax—with what has happened with the banks. Let us consider the massive loans that were advertised and almost forced on the various South American states and many other developing countries at exorbitant rates of interest which they are now struggling to repay. They are events so daft as to disentitle the banking community at large from any effective say over the economic destinies of the United Kingdom, let alone Europe. There are actions still being taken against individual depositors and account holders in the United Kingdom by way of charges in recoupment of the colossal losses which the banks have made.
There is a moral in this. I am pleased to support the noble Baroness. It shows the political purpose enshrined in a policy in which one believes, delivered by people who do not necessarily have an interest in the market results of what they are doing, but only in its goodness. Ultimately that is far more effective than the free market forces which have led the banking community into imperilling almost the financial structure of the civilised world.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee I too would like to thank and add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for guiding us

1153
through this most interesting but sometimes impracticable material. It became clear that secretaryship of the Cabinet must be an excellent training for the chairman of Sub-Committee A and we are all grateful to him.
I would like to make a few comments on essentially the first report. I should like to hang what I have to say on two events. The first is the Budget, and then, secondly, the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia, which came out in the course of our work and which I believe has important lessons about capital aid.
First, the Budget. Our aid policy has undergone a major strategic change which has been continued in this year's expenditure round. Although there is a 4 per cent. rise in cash terms until 1996–97, that will mean a real cut in total aid. But the problem is that it is impossible to say what the actual level of aid to developing countries will be because the ODA is discontinuing the practice of having separate lines for development aid stricto sensu on the one hand and, on the other, aid to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. However, the ODA itself forecasts an absolute cut in aid between 1995–96 and 1996–97, and, if the recent trend is continued, it suggests that it might fall on developing countries.
I would like to say something briefly about a matter which we commented on in our report; that is, the squeeze on bilateral aid because of the rising amount of our aid which is channelled through multinational agencies such as the European Community when our total aid is not increasing. British aid channelled through multinational agencies has risen from 27 per cent. of the total aid budget in 1980 to 45 per cent. now. It is forecast that in the mid-1990s it will pass 50 per cent.
As we pointed out, the consequences for our bilateral aid become more and more serious. Our bilateral aid is judged to be good. In July 1993, the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on ODA expenditure considered that Community programmes
"are not as well managed as bilateral aid".
That underlines the conclusions which our committee reached in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the first report about the high standards achieved by our bilateral aid. If your Lordships were to talk to our directors in the field—for example, to members of the British Council—I am sure that they would tell you that the Community delivery machine lacks quality compared to our bilateral aid and that it is less well designed and generally inferior.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, quoted the aphorism that we heard earlier that it is quality rather than quantity which is important. I would quarrel with him. I should like to put before your Lordships a different thesis in view of the figures in the Budget and that is that it is impossible to maintain quality on a shrinking performance. That is about the most important thing that I shall say tonight so I shall say it again: it is impossible to maintain quality on a shrinking performance. That is especially true of the increasing vulnerability of the British Council. Denied sufficient core funding, the council increasingly finds it necessary to bid for project work, for instance, against the Crown
1154
Agents, consortia of universities and consultants. Such bidding is a good thing, provided that it is kept in moderation.
In passing, however, I invite your Lordships to notice that when the British Council bids (as it does frequently) for Community projects, further problems arise. The Community lays it down that to be successful a project will be supported only if at least two sponsors come from different European countries. It is now commonly alleged that the British Council has embraced a completely new concept—"a contract with an uncommitted Greek"—to fulfil that condition. It seems sad that the Community should lay down such conditions because that suggests that Brussels is putting the advancement of the Community before the efficiency of its aid. That is a criterion which the committee heard in evidence in connection with the creation of ECHO.
A not dissimilar criticism has also been levelled about the selection of the countries to which the Community supplies aid. Largely I suppose because of the early date of the first Lomé Convention, there is no doubt that a disproportionate amount of European aid has been channelled to the, former overseas French possessions.
We should welcome the recent decision to increase the aid that is given to Asia. If we are seriously interested in the poorest people, we should never forget India, where the British Council has done such excellent work. There are more poor people in India than in the whole of Africa.
I turn now to my second event, the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the Pergau project. It has for some time been well known that all over the developing world hundreds and hundreds of dams have been built, absorbing colossal amounts of aid and wreaking all kinds of damage, human, ecological and economic. Sometimes the damage has been so severe as to counteract any benefits that the dams may have contributed. An early lesson could have been learnt from the Akosombo dam on the Volta River in Ghana in the 1950s and 1960s, but identical mistakes have been repeated time and time again: large numbers of people displaced from their homes, lands and livelihood; local people too poor to pay for the electricity that is eventually generated; the enormous spread of parasitic water-borne diseases, river blindness and the like; half the world's irrigated land so salinated that yields are affected and finally sedimentation—the reservoir ultimately fills up with silt and other detritus and has to be decommissioned, becoming a useless block of concrete.
As those of us who have spent years seeking sustainable development know, what is needed is a better understanding of technology in development. Aid programmes should be designed to make use of local available resources. Too often unsuitable Western hardware is chosen or installed by foreign "experts". Participation by the end user in project design and technology selection is vital. In the Arun hydro-electric project in Nepal, the only technology which was considered was a large high technology dam, in spite of the fact that there was in Nepal the technical ability to

1155
design, construct and install smaller scale schemes capable of supplying the same amount of power more quickly, more cheaply and with less risk.
Then came the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Malaysian Pergau hydro-electric project. It would seem that because of an earlier undertaking to the Malaysian Government, £234 million was sanctioned towards the biggest single project in British aid history. The money came from the aid and trade provision referred to in our report which can only be used in credit-worthy but poor countries for projects which are "financially and environmentally sound". I repeat the words "environmentally sound". The consultants reported their concern about the depletion of forest resources, encroachments into ecologically sensitive areas and the risks of disease transmission which might result from the project. As has already been mentioned, the Overseas Development Administration concluded that the project was "a very bad buy" and would cost Malaysian consumers over its 35-year life about £100 million more in electricity costs compared with locally gas-fired electricity generation.
I shall not go on further. However, I wonder whether I may be allowed to adopt the principle which was put before your Lordships earlier by my noble friend Lord Carr that as a general rule in this area technical aid is much more effective than capital aid.
My noble friend the Minister has of course been at the forefront in enhancing the reputation of British aid in its concentration upon sustainable and successful development. The ODA, the British Council and others have a deservedly high reputation in the field, but many of us tonight are concerned about a system which gives constantly increasing funds to the Community when our own bilateral aid is being shrunk considerably to provide it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, it is difficult to sustain a kind of dialectical vitality in a debate when we all agree so much with one another. That reflects the quality of the report, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As his contribution was quantified in notional terms by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, perhaps I, in passing, may say what an enormous sum his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, would have chalked up had he been able to benefit in the same way. As I have now retired from the sub-committee, I should like warmly to endorse the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and, previously, to his predecessor.
I cannot disagree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, said. In the early part of his remarks, he took as his text the aphorism that quality cannot be sustained on a shrinking budget. How true! We are deeply indebted to the Minister for the way that she fights her corner and her grasp of the whole subject. But in real, budgetary terms British aid is declining and will decline. Quality cannot be sustained on a shrinking budget however splendid the exertions of the ODA, to
1156
which I pay tribute. I worked with it in the field for many years. I have been involved with it at times in Whitehall. I have the utmost respect for it.
What lies behind the problem of the shrinking budget? I suggest that it reflects a certain disenchantment in public opinion. Over the years, the problems of bad government, in Africa in particular, and the stories of corruption which, alas, remains rife in many countries, are served up to us by the media in colourful terms, and, inevitably, the voting public has begun to question whether the whole apparatus of aid is directed properly and gives value for money.
I have to confess that, many years ago when I first became involved, I saw myself to some extent as a disciple of our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, who pioneered the criticism of the general concepts of intergovernmental aid. If the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, were still in his place, he would probably be glad to stand up now for the principles of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. What has been said about a certain capital aid project, of course, is grist to the mill of those who question the whole field of overseas aid. But we have to go on slogging away. We need to increase our contribution.
Some of your Lordships may have noticed an OECD report that I saw yesterday which gave the figure of the net contribution by the so-called developing countries to the economies of the developed countries in the years 1982–1990. The figure that the OECD identified as that contribution to our economies (the economy of this country and of others of the better-off industrialised countries) is equivalent to 418 billion dollars. I find it difficult to struggle with that magnitude of figure. But it means that, if total annual international aid for the same period—I am afraid that I do not carry these figures in my head, but I give them in rough and ready terms—is about 30 billion dollars a year, multiplied by eight years, that gives a figure vastly below what the developing countries are contributing to us.
On those grounds alone, there seems to be an unanswerable case for doing everything that we can, within our acknowledged budgetary stringencies, to prevent our aid contribution from being reduced in real terms. Reference has been made to the squeeze on our contributions to our bilateral programme resulting directly from the inexorable increase of the central Community programme. I say "inexorable" because pressures from the European Parliament and elsewhere for a continued increase in Community aid to developing countries will continue. We must accept that. If we did not maintain proportionately the amount we contribute to our own bilateral programme, eventually it would vanish. I do not suggest that that is a practical likelihood, but we must accept the fact of the squeeze, and that, however good the quality of our aid programme, it cannot be maintained against a continual squeeze.
The centralised Brussels administration has been criticised this afternoon. Certain criticisms were made in our report. We do not wish to be purely negative about Brussels' administration and programmes. As has been said, much in the formulation of programmes is excellent, imaginative and innovative. However, there

1157
remain notable flaws in the administration of the programmes. The evaluation, the monitoring and the follow-up do not exist. There is in Brussels a lack of professional staff of the right calibre and with sufficient experience. We in this country used to have a Colonial Office manned by home civil servants and a colonial service working in the field. It produced the most wonderful professionals. Brussels maintains such a split and it is not healthy. One cannot have good professional administration at the centre unless one can draw on the experience of competent professionals in the field. I hope that such problems will be corrected in time, but let the time not be too long.
There is need for a stronger central policy unit in Brussels. We referred to that in our report. The Council should have a more effective set of arrangements for keeping track of what the Commission is proposing and doing. I understand that the Government do not entirely share the views which the committee expressed on that matter but I wish to commend them to the noble Baroness.
Furthermore, the Court of Auditors needs to be strengthened. Indeed, the staffing of the Commission in the aid sphere generally needs strengthening. I see the noble Baroness shaking her head and I know that she does not agree. However, I wish to commend the point to her. We know that as regards the Commission's staffing there may be a certain amount of fat in certain areas. That is inevitable in an international organisation which is staffed on an international basis. But we believe that increases require to be made.
Reference has been made to the prospect of a GATT settlement. It has been suggested that, while in the long run that may be of general benefit to the poorer countries, there are strong grounds for thinking that the immediate effect of the projected lines of the GATT settlement will positively damage the trading interests of a number of the poorer developing countries. That is a serious prospect for them and it raises the question of whether more should not be proposed as regards compensation to offset that prospective damage.
If we achieve the GATT settlement to which we all look forward, one problem that will arise is that, in order to meet the considerable reduction in tariffs, we can expect the powerful industrial lobbies throughout the world effectively to lobby for a further increase in non-tariff barriers. Our second report traversed that subject a little. I believe that, because of the strength of the lobbies, there is no means in sight of preventing the Commission and member state governments accepting such a proliferation of non—tariff barriers. The consumer interest does not have the same kind of voice; certainly not a voice that can be brought to bear quickly. There is an international organisation of so-called consumer unions, which I commend to your Lordships. It brings together organisations such as the Consumers' Association in this country and its equivalents in other countries. They try to raise their voice and did so yesterday with Sir Leon Brittan at the final stage of GATT. I suggest that such an international consumer effort needs strengthening if only as a counter to the prospective increase in the efforts of the industrial lobbies.
1158
Earlier I gave the frightening figure of the net inflow of resources from the developing countries to the developed countries. That is a challenge to all the member state governments and to the Community generally to maintain their efforts. I extend to the noble Baroness every good wish that in fighting her corner in budget terms she will have as much success in the future as she had in the past and will go even further.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I too greatly welcome the two reports and express my admiration and appreciation for the hard work of the chairman and the committee. The result is two reports which are clear and informative even to a newcomer to the subject. I hope that they will be widely used. After all, as the chairman said, it is our money which goes to fund the aid programme under Lomé.
I should like to take this opportunity to express a concern which was probably not strictly within the terms of reference of the inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, told my noble friend the Minister that the committee was not primarily concerned with objectives but more with who does what. Before coming to your Lordships' House in 1990 I was a delegate to the Economic and Social Committee, the Consultative Assembly of the European Community. During my three years I was closely involved in the ACP/EC economic and social interest groups. As one of the three members of the contact group I had the good fortune of attending five joint assemblies. We were commonly known as the social partners group and our main function was to put forward the views of the trade unions, farmers, NGOs and other representatives of the people of the ACP states at those joint assemblies. Therefore, it is the objectives of aid on which I wish to concentrate.
Let us for a moment picture ourselves as living in an average African country at around subsistence level in 1980; that is, we should be able to look forward to two reasonable meals a day. Thirteen years later, with a convention which has provided for an increase in real terms, the chances are that we can look forward to only one meal a day.
Since the signing of the first Lomé Convention, most of the ACP countries' economies have not developed and that applies to every sector of the economy. Roads, schools and hospitals have all deteriorated and poverty has gained ground. Clearly that does not mean that the aid money has not been spent on development programmes. It simply means that no sector of the economy seems to have taken off, whether it be agriculture or industrialisation, so as to improve the lives of the ordinary people.
Paradoxically, while there is an increase of qualified people from the ACP states in Western Europe, they still have to look for technical assistance from outside. Would the Marshall Plan ever have produced any results if the people in charge had not had the clearest objective; that is, the economic and social reconstruction of Europe? Can one blame the members of the farmers group for wondering why the price of chocolate climbs higher every year in Brussels when the bottom

1159
has dropped out of the cocoa-bean market? It is not surprising that they feel that they are locked into a system in which they cannot bargain for what they grow but in which they must pay greatly enhanced prices for what they need to buy.
At joint assemblies I have always felt uneasy about the unrealistic expectations of the ACP states as regards aid. Perhaps it will always be so, but it is the filtering of aid through to the lowest level which is most important and which concerns me most. I am extremely pleased that my noble friend Lord Can has already put that matter so firmly on the agenda. Under Lomé IV opportunities have opened up for all kinds of initiatives specifically designed to help those in the lowest strata. It is extremely heartening to see Article 153 on women in development, but if that is to be more than just an article in the convention it is necessary first to see what programmes are in place and then to evaluate their impact. It is not much use starting training programmes for rural women if they are not fixed at a time at which the women can attend those programmes.
I know the interest which the Minister has in population issues. I am sure that she was as encouraged as the rest of us by the inclusion of Article 155 on population. However, I should like to draw attention to Article 230 on eligibility for financing, which in paragraph (g) makes it possible for aid to be given directly to community groups, NGOs, trade unions, co-operatives and teaching and research institutions to undertake economic, cultural, social and educational programmes in the ACP states.
One may wonder why that should be surprising in any way whatever, but your Lordships may not be aware of the opposition to that clause by many of the ACP states. The social partners group from the economic and social committee had lobbied for direct project aid for many years. We should have liked it to be totally independent of the ACP governments but that was not acceptable and their approval is still required. Nevertheless, I believe that that is an important advance and is an opportunity to put money where it is most likely to reach down or, as my noble friend Lord Carr said, bottom up rather than top down. That is so in particular because all the categories mentioned can be from either the EC or ACP countries or both together, jointly.
The Minister spoke of value for money in her evidence and many of your Lordships have dealt with that matter. I believe that that is the way to achieve value-for-money projects which would help to improve the conditions for the poorest. Those projects could be run by the local people with help, if necessary, from our own experienced NGOs.
However, I am deeply anxious about the possible complexity of making that clause work. I have seen Commission representatives behave in ways which reminded me of the British residents in preindependence India. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, mentioned the British officials in those colonies. However, I am referring to remoteness and I am sure that he was not. I have found the Commission representatives to be extremely remote from the people
1160
about whom they should be most concerned. Many of the groups do not even know where the Commission offices are situated.
There may also be problems as regards obtaining approval from ACP governments. Some ACP governments have stopped their representatives from attending the social partners' meetings because the social partners have failed to praise those governments to their satisfaction.
I am also extremely concerned about all the paperwork which goes with any help from the EC. I am extremely pleased that my noble friend Lord Boardman mentioned that. I hope that the Minister may be able to discover for us whether that clause has been used much or at all. It is too early for evaluation but it will be good to know whether all the efforts used in order to get that through are bearing fruit.
Finally, perhaps I may say that quality and quantity must go together. They are both essential. Neither would suffice without the other.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. I thank also our specialist adviser, Clerks and those who gave evidence before the committee.
Throughout the debate there has been a great degree of unanimity among those of your Lordships who sat on the committee as regards the report that has been produced. I suppose that that is not altogether surprising. I join in with that unanimity. I believe that it is an extremely good report and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He has been very clever in producing this report from the contributions of all of us who sit around on these Benches.
I propose to comment briefly on four issues: aid, trade and debt; the effect of GATT; multilateral and bilateral aid; and, finally, the focus of our own bilateral aid programme. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested, when we started on our report on aid, we were told that trade was much more important than aid. Therefore, we produced a report on aid. When we started our report on trade, we were told that debt was far more important than trade or aid. We decided that we could not do a report on debt because it was really outwith our terms of reference and involved discussions with international financial institutions of countries that are not members of the Community and so on. However, we recommended—and I hope that the recommendation is accepted—that an ad hoc committee be set up to look at debt because, until debt is looked at alongside aid and trade, it is not possible to survey properly the total effort which is made by the developed world, its effectiveness and the way in which it is helping the poorest countries in the developing world. That is all I have to say about trade, aid and debt.
I should like to say a few words about GATT. Other noble Lords have mentioned that there is a downside, as it were, to GATT. A successful conclusion—and we hope it will be successful—to the GATT negotiations will be justifiably greeted with euphoria. However, we should not forget that, for the poorest countries, GATT

1161
is not altogether good news. The figures from the report given by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, show the extent to which they will suffer.
Whereas OECD calculates that there will be a gain in the income of developing countries of 195 billion dollars, the poorest countries will be losing 7 billion dollars a year. We must not avert our eyes from that very important fact. We must turn our minds to deciding how we can compensate them and what compensatory measures are appropriate. In the report, we suggested tariff preferences. In the course of today's debate, the noble Lords, Lord Carr and Lord Boardman, and others, quite rightly pointed out that tariff preferences are not a very effective way of helping. Therefore, let us consider urgently how those poorer countries—and the whole idea is that we should help them —can be compensated in the circumstances of a successful GATT negotiation.
Nearly every speaker who has spoken has talked about the consequences of the decision of the Edinburgh Council of 1992 that the EC's aid should be increased by 60 per cent. in 1999 and the effect that that will have on British bilateral aid. Unless the latter is increased, it will automatically be squeezed; and, as it is automatically squeezed, so our programmes will also be squeezed. Moreover. whether EC programmes are good or bad, it is certain that if such programmes are squeezed further, their quality will suffer, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, admirably pointed out in dealing with what is known in chess as the Chalker defence of British aid policy; namely, that quality is more important than quantity. At a certain point quantity starts to affect quality. I suggest that that point has come and has come very sharply at this time, not least because human and financial resources have been diverted since 1989 from aid to the developing world to aid to Central and Eastern Europe. That presents a very real problem and one which must be confronted.
I am the last person to complain about aid to those Central and Eastern European countries. I believe that their political future depends on economic reforms which are visible to the inhabitants of those countries. Unless those economic reforms are delivered, the political reforms will not materialise.
However, that being said, we must recognise that that diversion of resources is a diversion to purposes which are rather different from their original objectives. For example, the standard of living in Poland cannot be compared with that in sub-Saharan Africa. The aid that we were giving to the latter was of a different nature and for a different purpose from that applicable to Poland. It is my simple view that new demands require new resources and that different demands, such as essentially political demands—which are what the Central and Eastern European aid programme was designed to meet—should not diminish the resources which are devoted to the fight against poverty.
As has already been mentioned, because the budget lines have been amalgamated, it has become much more difficult to assess what has been happening. That means that we cannot tell what is going to Central or Eastern Europe and what is going elsewhere. Can the Minister say why that has been done? Why should we be deprived of that information? It makes one suspicious.
1162
If we are properly to asses what is being done, we need such information. Further, if we are to help the Minister fight her "corner", as it has been called on many occasions, we should like to have as much information as possible in order to defeat her enemies.
If, as, regrettably, I have to say I fear, the Government cannot bring themselves to increase the British budget for bilateral aid, it will be necessary urgently to reconsider the focus of our aid programme both geographically and in terms of projects. We cannot spread it thinly over the same area for all those projects. Here we come to an important question which neither of the two reports addressed and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, referred. What is the most effective use of aid? I asked most of our witnesses that question in one form or another. The answers were, shall we say, not very precise. Yet the effectiveness of aid is at the heart of the matter. I should have thought that it was high time that some kind of systematic study comparing and contrasting different types of aid was undertaken.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr, pointed out that technical aid is much better than capital investment and the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, pointed out that dams were disastrous. If I may say so, those are broad-brush statements. We need rather more precise information. For example, why is it that south-east Asian countries have taken off and, on the whole, African countries have not? Was it due to aid? I do not know, and I do not know if anyone knows the answer. Was it due to culture, whatever that may mean? Was it due to political stability, though not democracy? Was it due to market economies? Well, perhaps not altogether. Well, what was the reason? We should surely know. Why have we failed in Southern Africa to the extent that we have? I believe that a more coherent study would be very useful.
However, if one looks at south-east Asia and compares it with Africa, one factor stands out; namely, literacy. The figure runs to the order of 80 per cent. there and to the order of 40 per cent., very broadly, in Africa. Therefore, one can almost say that literacy has a direct connection with success. I must, therefore, return to my hobby-horse. If we have to refocus our aid by narrowing and concentrating it as regards both projects and geographical areas, I suggest that we should put literacy very high on the agenda. Moreover, I believe that we should put literacy of women high on that particular agenda. I say that because, on the whole, literate women are more interested in literacy in others than appears to be the case with literate men. They seem to use their literacy to help in population control, or whatever one may like to call it. They carry out most of the agricultural work. Therefore, if one wants to improve standards of agriculture in many developing third world countries, the women, if they are literate, will do more than the men sitting around on their haunches. For all those reasons, if we have to concentrate our programmes, I hope that we shall concentrate on education and that, within education, we shall focus on literacy and, in turn, within that focus, on literacy for women.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I am sure that we are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and his fellow committee members, together with their advisers and their Clerks, for the two very clear and closely related reports. We are also grateful to those who spared the time and the resources to give evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, brought to the task not only his outstanding experience in Whitehall but also a considerable personal commitment to third-world issues as evidenced in his past patient but deft chairmanship of the Disasters Emergency Committee made up of some of the key humanitarian voluntary agencies in the United Kingdom.
We are also glad that the Minister is back from her important visit to South Africa to share in our deliberations. Looking ahead, South Africa will be an immense challenge to the European Union. The political settlement will be the beginning, not the end. Expectations and aspirations will be unlimited in health, education, employment, housing, land, agriculture and industry. The test of our real European Union commitment to a democratic, non-racist, post-apartheid South Africa will be the resources and support that we make available for that great country's future. For the European Union to fail the people of South Africa in their hour of emancipation and hope would be the ultimate betrayal, playing into the hands of chaos, disorder and extremism.
To do these reports justice it is essential to measure them against the needs. As we approach the new millennium the realities are stark. Somewhere every 2.4 seconds of every day a young child dies unnecessarily of poverty. Average life expectancy is still 12 years shorter in the south than in the north. Some 1.5 thousand million people are deprived of even primary health care. Some 1.75 thousand million people have no access to safe water. Some 3,000 million people still live without adequate sanitation. The south's maternal mortality rate is still 12 times higher than that of the north. It is estimated that by the year 2000 there may well be 2,000 million people living in absolute poverty and 100 million refugees and displaced people in the world. That is a grim prospect as we approach the Christmas season and hardly the basis for a stable, peaceful global community.
I have no shred of doubt that the European Union will ultimately be judged not by its selfish social and economic indices and its introspective materialist preoccupations but by the dynamic part it plays in building a fairer, more just and altogether more viable world community. And what of our own Government's record, which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, so rightly stressed? The Minister may well seize on the reports before us to argue that an increasing proportion of our aid budget is pre-empted by inescapable commitments to the European Union. But the truth is that, while to its credit the European Union has been expanding its total aid budget, the UK aid budget has by contrast remained frozen. The obvious way to reduce the proportion of our aid going to the European Union is to expand our own
1164
aid budget. Indeed against the challenges I have described the record of the present Government is deplorable. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, with others, has gently but firmly made that point
As in so many spheres with this Government, the rhetoric comes cheaply but it contrasts with the action. Despite the Conservative Party manifesto commitment to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product for official aid, under present stewardship the percentage continues to plummet. Even before the recent Budget the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place projected that as things stood the percentage would be down to 0.26 per cent. of gross national product by 1995–96 as compared with 0.51 per cent. when the Conservatives originally came to office. That figure is virtually halved as a percentage of our national wealth. The Budget has made things worse. It really was disingenuous of the noble Baroness to issue a press release, which I have before me, which states:
"Britain's total external assistance programmes are to be maintained at their previously agreed levels".
That is "Yes Minister"-speak for a continued freeze which represents a cut in real terms of almost 10 per cent. over the next three years.
It is that cash freeze, as my noble friend Lord Rea has argued, which reduces the funds available for our bilateral aid programme every bit as much as the expanding European Union budget. But that is not all. The reports before us have drawn attention to the demands of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and express anxiety about diversion of staff and resources. We must see this in the light of our own bilateral programme. Speaking to the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Harare in October 1991, the Prime Minister emphatically stated:
"UK assistance to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is additional to, and not at the expense of, our aid to developing countries".
But we now learn that in future the Government are to combine aid to developing countries and aid to Eastern Europe in an integrated budget. The noble Baroness has tried to reassure us that there is no threat to developing countries, but while aid in the current year to developing countries has gone up by 3.5 per cent. in cash terms, hardly matching inflation, aid to Eastern Europe has shot up by 23.4 per cent. While a freeze has been imposed on third world aid for the next two years, aid to Eastern Europe will go up by more than 19 per cent. What is this in real terms but a significant shift to Eastern Europe at the expense of the third world?
There is also emergency aid. In 1992–93 the Government spent £92 million in Bosnia alone. That is three times the amount available for Mozambique. I am frankly saddened to see the noble Baroness caught up in this juggling with figures. This is a Treasury game and certainly not one for the ODA. As I have repeatedly said in this House, and as my noble friend Lord Bruce has so well said today, the Minister's personal, humanitarian commitment is real, as all who have worked with her know well. I greatly enjoyed working with her during my time as director of Oxfam. But the tragedy is that she is repeatedly deserted by her colleagues, who do not begin to share in her commitment. How long, I ask

1165
myself, can she stay as this feeble administration's humanitarian fig leaf. I care for her reputation for integrity at the bar of history.
What lessons do we learn from these reports and from other relevant research? There is obviously a balance sheet in the European Union aid performance. On the one hand, between 1988 and 1991 a high proportion—48 per cent.—of European Community aid went to the least developed countries and a further 40 per cent. to low income countries. A high proportion—95 per cent. in 1991—of European Community aid is provided as grants. Some 14 per cent., as compared with the Development Assistance Committee average of 4.2 per cent., was dispersed in 1990 through non-governmental organisations, which are frequently one of the most effective channels. Much of the aid is targeted to rural areas, where the poorest people predominantly still live, but it has to be said that there is room for more evidence that it reaches the poor in these areas. On the other hand, the most populous poor countries receive small amounts of aid per capita. For example, between 1988 and 1991 India received one-tenth of a dollar and Bangladesh six-tenths of a dollar per capita compared with 19 dollars for Guyana—a middle income country—and 12.5 dollars for the Ivory Coast.
Much European Union aid is still tied, with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries awarded only 17.4 per cent. of contracts for supplies and a mere 7.2 per cent. of technical assistance contracts. Too much aid is arguably still provided to countries which on poverty criteria should be ineligible, for example, Turkey, Jordan and Tunisia. The proportion of aid going to support basic needs such as education—to which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, so well referred—and health is still too low, with 2.9 per cent. allocated to education, as compared with a Development Assistance Committee average of 10.2 per cent., and with only 4.1 per cent. allocated to health.
Management of aid leaves a great deal to be desired, with a grave lack of delegation to field staff, sparse evaluation and far too little involvement of the local population in identifying and designing projects. That problem was tellingly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, this afternoon. There is a lack of accountability and transparency and this is aggravated by the complexity of administration, with the fragmentation of management between Directorate-General VIII and Directorate-General I which makes it difficult to make comparisons between programmes.
There is a need for more expertise in some areas and for a more rational deployment of staff. I find it worrying that there are only 10 dedicated and overworked members of staff to deal with the food aid which accounts for 25 per cent. of all European Union aid. In this respect it is significant that the ODA has been paying out of its own budget for experts to work in Brussels to strengthen European Union capacity. It is clear that any supposed co-ordination of member states' programmes is a myth. There is as far as I can see no co-ordination of responsibility according to predetermined criteria. Developing countries outside the
1166
African, Caribbean and Pacific regions receive a smaller share of European Union aid and less favourable trade terms.
What are the priorities therefore for the future? A number of NGOs throughout Europe have been working together—I believe this is a good indication of what can happen in the European Community—including Oxfam and Action Aid from the United Kingdom. They have given a great deal of thought to these issues and I have been impressed by what they have argued. Some of it was well reflected in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee by the British NGOs.
Clearer policy objectives than those outlined in the Maastricht Treaty are essential. The focus on poverty should be sharpened by increasing access to health care, education, water and sanitation. There must be far greater availability of credit, coupled with improved access to markets. Those two together are an unrivalled investment in the earning capacity of the poor. Genuine priority must be given to sustainable economic and social development, with an emphasis on labour-intensive methods. Europe, not least the United Kingdom, should put its resources where its words were at Rio last year. How right the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, was in what he said on that subject and in so much else of what he said today.
The first step in a campaign against poverty must be to enter into policy dialogue with individual recipient governments with the aim of designing poverty-reduction blueprints for each country. The objective should surely be to target 50 per cent. of European Union aid on poverty-related programmes. That should be co-ordinated with the World Bank, the IMF and regional banks. Conditionality should insist that the disadvantaged are targeted—the elderly, the handicapped, women and children. At least 20 per cent. of European Union aid should be focused on the social sector and social infrastructure. Indeed, the Inter-American Development Bank has already shown the way. It has reached 18 per cent. and aims to reach 35 per cent.
Integration of administration is essential. The European Community Humanitarian Office should on no account be seen as a separate division or institution. It has to be inherently part of the relief, rehabilitation and development operations. At the same time dialogue and co-operation with the NGOs should generally be improved.
In all of the Commission's projects the impact on poverty must be rigorously and consistently measured. Apart from the Commission's own programme, it is high time that member states got their act together in ensuring cohesion and greater effectiveness of their aggregated bilateral programmes. Above all, policy coherence between trade, foreign and aid policies needs to be improved. Trade and foreign policies can too easily be in conflict with poverty alleviation when there is insufficient co-ordination. The effect of non-aid foreign policy ought to be kept regularly under review.
The World Development Movement regularly reminds us—and rightly—that while aid accounts for 5 per cent. of the income of third world countries trade accounts for more than 80 per cent. The European Union

1167
market is particularly important. For many of the least developed countries it accounts for 50 per cent. or more of their exports. It is interesting that the Select Committee concluded that import tax relief would be one of the most important ways of generating trade with developing countries. However, the committee was also right to point out, first, that the tariff preference tool is very imprecise and, secondly, that with any future global trade liberalisation it would anyway decrease in significance.
In this debate many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, have stressed the significance of GATT. Whatever the theoretical commitment in the GATT negotiations to multilateralism, the Uruguay Round has been dominated by the United States, the European Union and Japan. The failure to address the third world's agenda has illustrated the undemocratic nature of the GATT structure and the subordination of genuine multilateralism to the strategic, not to say selfish, interests of the North. So far as I can see, the newly-proposed multilateral trade organisation as planned will do nothing to correct that.
UNCTAD has calculated that 83 per cent. of manufactured exports from the third world to the European Union currently encounter trade barriers, reducing their earnings by 3 per cent. a year. The 1992 World Bank Report Global Economic Prospects and Developing Countries estimated that a 50 per cent. reduction in the trade barriers of Europe, Japan and the United States would increase developing countries' exports by 50 billion US dollars a year, just less than the 57 billion US dollars aid which they receive.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, stressed, it is also true that the figures produced by both OECD and GATT indicate that, if international income were to increase by 215 billion US dollars following a so-called successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round, some three-quarters of that would accrue directly to the northern economies and many developing countries would be net losers, with African countries standing to lose 2,600 million dollars a year by the year 2002. In any case, the proposed GATT does not, I fear, deal adequately with the problem of escalating tariff barriers. By the same token, while it includes the phasing out of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, it does so only over a period of 10 years, with the benefits stacked at the end of the period. God knows what the human cost will be in that decade.
I conclude by saying that, while in theory the extension of GATT to cover agricultural projects should be of benefit to developing countries, where agriculture typically accounts for two-thirds of employment and 25 per cent. of gross domestic product, in practice the agricultural agenda has been dictated by the narrow interests of the European Union and the United States, where farming accounts for less than 5 per cent. of GDP and employment. The proposed Final Act and Blair House accord fail to tackle the issue of central concern to developing countries, the ending of subsidised export dumping by the European Union and the United States. If the GATT makes it more difficult for developing
1168
countries to foster food sufficiency by protecting their agricultural sectors from cheap imports, that will seriously undermine their food security.
These reports of the Select Committee are crucial. They, and the debate today, have illustrated the wisdom of the committee's recommendation that we must find more parliamentary opportunities and time to monitor the European Community's aid and trade policies. It is high time that what the Commission does in our name was open to detailed scrutiny. It would be beneficial if for its next report the Select Committee were able to make visits in the field to take evidence from the supposed beneficiaries on how they see it all. A special report on debt is certainly urgently required. Meanwhile, we look forward to the Minister's reply.
It is clear that the Government's influence on improving the European Union's aid and related trade performance will be dependent upon the demonstrable commitment of the Government themselves to the battle against poverty and to the building of a dynamic, outward-looking European Union. Frankly, I fear that, whatever the personal inclinations of the Minister, the Government's response collectively to both those challenges can, sadly, only be described as repeatedly lamentable.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and his committee on two outstanding reports which have led to this very interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, rightly said that they are good, informative reading, and even educational.
I thank many of your Lordships for kind remarks about the ODA and about me personally. I appreciate the tease from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about quality and quantity, which was picked up in the speeches of a number of other noble Lords. I shall always say that quality must be maintained. I may have my battles over quantity, as your Lordships' House will know, and I want to increase quantity as soon as the British economy will allow that, but I will not give up battling for quality. That applies not only to quality in our bilateral programmes but also to quality in the programmes carried out in the EC, to which the two reports refer, or in the international financial institutions, the UN or any other body to which we contribute.
It would be fair to say that the probing of your Lordships' committee over the last year has acted as a spur to the Commission. I have to report a better attitude on the part of many in the Commission to the ideas which are contained in your Lordships' first report on EC development aid. I see some change coming about, and I shall deal with that in my reply.
I well recall giving evidence at the start of your Lordships' inquiry last February. On that day we focused on the need for an effective EC development programme, not least because 23 per cent. of the UK's aid budget is channelled through the Community. The first report has some useful suggestions in areas such as pre-project planning and the use of evaluations. There is also a large degree of consensus now within the

1169
Community about the importance of ensuring that aid is used as effectively as possible in achieving its development objectives. Those objectives are now formalized in Title XVII of the Maastricht Treaty: to combat poverty, promote sustainable development and assist the integration of developing countries into the world economy. Our partners share our concern that aid should be targeted towards the poorest of the poor and directed where it can make a real impact. Your Lordships' report on development aid recognises the importance of that.
The first report also led the committee into the second major inquiry on EC aid and trade policy, which raised further fundamental questions of whether trade policies are a useful means of promoting development. Perhaps I may say how much I welcome this thoughtful and serious contribution, in particular at a time when the Community's trade policies are in the focus of world attention. I shall turn later to the Uruguay Round which we all hope will he rewarded with success in a couple of days' time.
What is absolutely clear is that the right trade policies are vital. However, they are only part, but an important part, of the story because trade is three-quarters of the income of developing countries and aid is only one-quarter. In some parts of the world such as Asia, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, remarked, trade becomes eleven-twelfths of the income of those countries. Sadly, that is not so in Africa. We have always known that aid needs buttressing by trade and agriculture. But by far the most important element in development is the correct pursuance of policies by governments of the developing countries themselves.
At various times during the debate I was asked about our approach to a number of issues in terms of budgeting. In a moment I shall come to that very issue. However, first, I should like to touch on four slightly separate issues which are not directly part of the reports but on which the reports reflect by their comments. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, when he spoke of the importance of the future European Union/South Africa relationship. I can tell the noble Lord that we signalled that point at the November meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council. It is perfectly true that imaginative thinking will be required. I am delighted to say that the establishment of a British Development Division in Pretoria is really in the vanguard of the work that will need to be done in South Africa; and of course we have been active in South Africa for most of the past eight years working through non-governmental organisations, which was all that was possible until now. In addition, we agreed at the Anglo-German summit in November that the UK and Germany would work closely together on the tasks in South Africa.
Perhaps I may now turn to the vexed question of ATP and I Pergau. I well understand noble Lords' interest in the issue. However, I should refer your Lordships to the answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on 24th November at col. 258 of the Official Report. I have a difficulty. I understand that the PAC will be inquiring about this. It is our convention that we
1170
do not refer to those matters publicly until that hearing has taken place. However, I note carefully the comments of all noble Lords on the matter.
The third matter to which I wish to refer—it is not really a separate issue—is the subject of debt to which the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Bonham-Carter and many others referred. Debt is truly a matter of deep concern. It certainly is a problem of great importance for developing countries. But it remains an area in which the European Community has no powers to act. It remains a matter of national policy on which member states, rightly in my opinion, combine to work through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and with other partners to seek to produce a better relief of debt programme. Your Lordships will be well aware of the initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the Trinidad Terms. That is an example of the way in which we believe debts should be handled on the international stage. However, perhaps I may say, because of my deep interest in the matter, that should your Lordships have a Select Committee looking into the issue it will run very wide because every donor nation is deeply concerned. In several fora we have managed to persuade better language, even from our Japanese partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, asked me about OECD net transfers and gave some rather worrying figures. I shall look at what the noble Lord said. However, the flow of funds between developed and developing countries is always large and the concepts complex. The net flows of financial resources to developing countries in 1992 were put by OECD at 165 billion dollars, which was a 23 per cent. increase over 1991, accounted for by a sharp rise in private investment and other private flows. Those figures I know for certain. I shall look at the figures which the noble Lord quoted and write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and others made comment about the combining together of all our aid resources in one budget. I have always believed that we should learn the lessons in different parts of the world which are applicable to other parts of the world. Managing everything separately does not always mean that that occurs. However, I can assure your Lordships that when we allocate the funds available we take into account the balance of expenditure between the regions. I can further assure noble Lords that Asia and Africa have long been our major priorities and that they will continue to be so. I was interested in the Africa/Asia comparison which the noble Lord, Lord Bonharn-Carter, gave. Like him, I believe that the advanced literacy of many Asian people is the reason that they have progressed so much more quickly. It was interesting that that issue was raised at the Tokyo International Conference on African Development, with real acceptance from the African countries that they needed to be a little more like the Asians in that specific respect.
Poverty focus is central not only to the UK bilateral programme but multilaterally too. It is an issue being adopted by the European Community. It is certainly central to the European Development Fund which deals with the ACP countries. In future it will be perfectly

1171
possible to see expenditure country by country and region by region because that will be published in the annual British aid statistics. There is no question of hiding that. Over the coming weeks we are reviewing the aid given to all nations. However, Africa undoubtedly will continue to be a main focus of our bilateral aid. As your Lordships know, support will go to the countries with good government and those pursuing economic reform. I hope that we shall be in a position to make a substantial pledge to SPA III.
In the light of that combined budget, fears were raised about the money spent in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that we shall regularly look at the balance between Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. No one is more sure than me that we have to transfer the lessons learned from one programme to another. I do not wish to end up in the situation so well underlined in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of the separateness within the Commission of the management of aid. I do not intend to let that happen in the British bilateral programme or, if I have influence on it, in the European or any other programme to which we contribute.
My noble friend Lord Carr in, to me, a moving speech, talked about the need to maintain the critical mass of UK bilateral aid. So did the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I strongly agree that we must maintain a critical mass of bilateral aid. I am seeking to do just that by keeping up the overall level of our aid and by critically reviewing all new multilateral commitments. That is certainly among my highest priorities at the moment.
Our increased contribution to the EC aid budget will affect our bilateral aid programme, but it may be that the smaller bilateral programme can be buttressed by the amount we do within the EC programme overall. It is perfectly clear that the Community has looked to British experts and British know-how in the development of its programme. When it comes to evaluation, we find the Community going through the manner in which we do things, to adapt it for its own purposes. So I believe that we are having an influence, by our own progress, on many of the issues of which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his committee spoke.
Perhaps I may turn now to evaluation. Having shared our ODA evaluation experience with the European Commission, it is reviewing the matter. It has not been popular, but the Commission seeks to bring the experience together. At present, evaluation and monitoring of projects during their performance takes place at a number of different levels. We believe that the work carried out by the Court of Auditors is an important tool in ensuring that the principles of sound financial management are applied to all Community funds.
In the past, the court has rightly expressed concern as to the value for money, as does the committee in its report. There is already an active evaluation in DG VIII, but it is now taking over responsibility for evaluation in Asia, Latin America and the Mediterranean countries as well. We must see how it goes, but we will not be slow
1172
in giving advice if we think that we have appropriate advice to offer the Commission in this all-important matter.
In due course, I hope that the full implementation of DG VIII's project cycle management, an integrated approach and logical framework policy, will lead the Commission to feed the lessons of its evaluation back into the planning process. That is what we have sought to do in Britain and it has served us well. We already provide summaries of our own evaluations both to the Commission and to other member states on a regular basis. I strongly support the exchange of evaluation results between donors. Where I think the committee was wise in its advice was in suggesting that the Development Council should take an even more active role in setting the overall policy framework.
There is already some monitoring of implementation of the programme through the various working groups. But I believe that in addition to representation on management committees, there needs to be a greater opportunity to scrutinise certain areas of policy from time to time. That may take a new form of co-ordination and it is something to which at present I am giving thought.
We are making efforts to improve co-ordination between the Commission and the bilateral donors. A part of the so-called Horizon 2000 initiative is to improve co-ordination. There is a link here between that and the debate on complementarity to which I shall move in a moment. Last May we had a debate on policy co-ordination with a good resolution and we have asked for reports from the Commission on the implementation of that policy co-ordination. In the 2nd December Development Council meeting we agreed on a co-ordinated approach towards measures to fight poverty. We have a future timetable to include other areas of key interests such as health and education. I hope that will all serve to make the programme more effective, because what we are after is an increase in operational co-ordination, not only in Brussels but particularly in the field. Next May, the Development Council will specifically address the question of co-ordination in the field and we have said that we are ready to take the lead in at least one country and to give ideas about how better co-ordination can be achieved in the field. Frankly, I see that as one of the most serious problems. I have asked all my high commissioners and ambassadors to gather their colleagues together and let me know when it does not work. That way, I hope practically to get the issue right.
In addition to those matters, we have also in recent council meetings adopted resolutions on poverty alleviation and family planning. In each of those areas we are drawing up a framework for the Community and member states so that we act in a co-ordinated manner. I look forward to seeing the results of the work. We have already done work on social indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, literacy and access to drinking water, and have seen improvements over the past 30 years. But while some developing countries have developed economic growth, they have not had the right domestic policies; therefore, their social indicators have not improved. But without the right domestic

1173
policies for their economies, there will be no external aid programme, apart from humanitarian aid. So there is a great deal to be done. I hope that that answers my noble friend Lady Flather's question.
On the population issue, we have made some good progress in the councils, particularly under our own presidency last year. That is one of the other areas of policy co-ordination which seems to be moving ahead quite fast. However, we need to see operational implementation by the Commission. In particular, I wish to see a real increase in Commission spending on family planning in the Lomé Convention to mirror the large increases that we are making bilaterally.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked whether by giving 100 per cent. joint funding on population issues to the bilateral programme I would be cutting back on other Joint Funding Scheme funding. The answer is no; the 100 per cent. funding was as a spur to get population programmes moving. I am very much in favour of persuading the Community to do something similar because I believe that, along with education, family planning is one of the most basic and critical elements of any development programme.
Horizon 2000 has been the kind of change which I believe your Lordships' committee wished to see. The committee wished to see an integrated policy, a clearer policy approach, improvement of monitoring, evaluation and more delegation to the field. Bit by bit, we are working through all those recommendations to make them part of the EC aid programme, just as they are part of our bilateral programme. But the key issue will always be to make sure that good policies, worked out by the member states and the Commission in Brussels, are translated into good policies in the field. That is where the non-governmental organisations can be of immense help to us. I know that they have been very critical at times in the relations they have had with the EC. I am determined that those will improve. They are already better and one good sign is the co-ordination between the non-governmental organisations them-selves.
Your Lordships' committee made many comments, as has happened in the debate, on the diversity among directorates-general in the Commission. Like your Lordships' committee, I believe that it is unsatisfactory. We have long held that DG VIII and the DG I north-south division should be re-united and at least it was a step forward last year that there is now a single commissioner for both, who also happens to be responsible for ECHO. I know that the commissioner shares my views on the need for a more unified approach and already there are some services in DG I and DG VIII which are being brought together: structural adjustment as well as evaluation. But with the agreement of the European Council last week and enlargement to 21 commissioners, it is too soon to say what the outcome will be for development co-operation. I can assure your Lordships that it is something that I am carefully watching.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, my noble friend Lord Carr and other noble Lords spoke about the need for specialist staff. The inquiry on EC aid raised such questions about staffing. After investigation I am
1174
inclined to believe that the problem is not with overall numbers, as I explained to the inquiry. DG I, DG VIII and ECHO have over 1,500 people in Brussels and the field. Although the responsibilities are not directly comparable, it is worth noting that we have a total of 1,200 staff. I believe that the Commission has to address the issue because it is quite clear to me that it is weak in an all-important area of expert advice. In many areas the Commission relies on recruiting consultants on three-year contracts or staff seconded from member states. I have currently four members of my staff seconded to the Commission and the new secondment of a social development adviser to DG VIII is particularly important because the Commission had not previously had the benefit of any professional advice in that all important area. We shall examine further possibilities. Certainly a statistician will go in the new year to work on improving the statistics for Africa and we are discussing several other opportunities, particularly in the health field.
I believe that such secondments may be one of the better ways to improve the quality of the EC aid programme. Member states have a lot of experience in these matters. I know from my Danish, German and Dutch colleagues that they believe that it is a very valuable way in which to improve the effectiveness of the programme.
With regard to complementarity, it is quite clear that the debate in the Community is only just getting under way. It is certainly not clear where it will lead in terms of responsibilities. I believe that the key question is whether complementarity contributes to making aid more effective. It must not start to become an end in itself. In our December Development Council meeting we agreed to establish a high level group of officials to study the scope for greater complementarity between the Community and bilateral aid. The United Kingdom will participate fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about the Lomé mid-term review. We agreed Lomé IV for 10 years in 1990, but the EDF finances it for only five years. That is why we have a mid-term review which will take us until early 1995. Currently the ACP as well as the EC are identifying the items that each side wishes to reopen. We shall not know the ACP concerns until next March, but we shall work very hard on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Carr and a number of other noble Lords spoke about food surpluses and food aid as being, frankly, one of the worst ways of helping the developing world. I believe that we are right to emphasise the need to avoid distortions caused by exporting EC surpluses as did the committee. Certainly one of our achievements in the UK presidency in 1986 was the food aid regulation which effectively changed the basis of EC food aid from being supply-led to being demand-led. It is still far from perfect, I know, but we hope that we can concentrate on the longer-term rather than emergencies. As the NGOs so clearly said to the committee, and as your Lordships are aware, if there is better supply for the long-term, fewer emergencies will arise. But at least we now have the food aid regulation, which is no longer a creature of the shortcomings of the CAP.

1175
Like your Lordships, I deplore the well-known cases in which subsidised EC exports have harmed local agriculture in a number of developing countries. While the CAP is still far from perfect, at least the reforms of 1992 bring some welcome changes in the right direction. Surplus production is being cut and export subsidies are to be phased out. I can certainly show a reduction in the subsidies and an improvement over the past two years.
In the specific case of beef, the total for refunds will fall from 1,333 million ecus in 1992 to 902 million ecus in 1994. That is certainly an improvement. We have worked on the problems of subsidised beef exports which were causing such awful problems to local producers in West Africa. It is good to note that in July the Commission cut the subsidy on beef exports to West Africa by 15 per cent. I understand that the Commission has reduced the amount sent there by 25 per cent. It is still not enough but I believe that we have to press for the effects of exports on local markets to be monitored and take action case by case until we have a better system on preferences and a better overall trade situation. As I said, it is three-quarters of the income of developing countries.
Let me turn briefly to the situation that we have now. I was asked about prospects for the Generalised System of Preferences review.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She has given some undertakings in regard to specific commodities such as beef. Will she give an unequivocal undertaking that the situation in regard to tobacco will be looked at and that the whole wretched fiasco will be scrapped as soon as possible?
Baroness Chalker: The noble Lord knows very well that I thoroughly share his view on the fiasco of tobacco. But the problem is not quite so easy to resolve as our fury might indicate. There are many countries which have not diversified. This may be a good moment to say that I believe that it is undesirable to let a preference mentality build up among developing countries because they are then dissuaded from diversifying out of tobacco, which they might well do.
Certainly the private sector is the key to diversification. I believe that the donors in the European Community can help build up the private sector to a certain extent. But it is the policies of the developing countries themselves which will bear the largest responsibility for it. Certainly we acknowledge that diversification is not an easy solution, particularly when countries are heavily dependent on a single product. Structural adjustment is often needed to help a country move from making yesterday's goods to making tomorrow's. If it is done too quickly, sometimes severe strains come upon the economy. We need to look at structural adjustment in line with diversification, which will help countries to get away from their dependency on preferences, whatever the rogue element of preference may be.
The whole question of preferences is very complex. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his
1176
committee for the way in which they tackled all those issues in the report. Certainly the European Community trade preferences are not worked out for an ideal world. It is true that it would be much better if they were related to the poverty of the trade partner. But I hope that the European Community's response will enable us to make sure that we move away from preferences as far as is possible. The GSP review will begin fairly soon and I hope that we will make sure that the scheme that we have been rolling over on an annual basis since 1990 pending the resolution of the GATT round will enable us now to embark on a proper review in the light of the GATT round.
Your Lordships asked a number of questions about the GATT round itself. I believe that the recent OECD/World Bank study on the round, which concluded that the proposed liberalisation of trade in manufactured and agricultural products would raise incomes in non-OECD countries by some 78 billion dollars per year, will be an under-estimate. I say that because it ignores the immediate boost to worldwide business confidence which a successful conclusion to the round will bring. That study concluded that the developing countries stand to suffer most from a continuation, or even intensification, of protectionism, which is what we wish to get away from.
I was asked also about the effects on individual countries. It is difficult to predict. Some countries will lose out in the short term, particularly those who are agricultural importers, because world prices are likely to rise as subsidised exports are cut. But in the longer term they will benefit from the boost to their own agricultural production. In the meantime the GATT Final Act specifically includes special measures such as additional financing from the international financial institutions for any such disadvantaged countries. I believe that that is the right way to go to help them through this difficult period of transfer.
It is also worth noting that despite the anxieties expressed by some noble Lords, the developing countries themselves strongly favour a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round. They realise that it is not a zero sum game; all will benefit from a boost to the world economy. The real threat to the developing countries is without doubt the increased protectionism which would result from a failure in the talks.
The most information that I have been able to gather on the talks this afternoon is that some problems are still outstanding. I hope that your Lordships realise that in the GATT round we are aiming for an agreement of unparalleled complexity. We always knew that we would be going right down to the wire on this. I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said in regard to Sir Leon Brittan. I remain optimistic that there are overwhelming benefits for all from a successful round that will encourage the necessary flexibility on all sides.
In closing perhaps I may say that this has been one of the best debates that we have had in your Lordships' House since I was privileged to join it. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his committee that we will endeavour to direct EC aid towards those countries that can make the best use of it. They too must show the

1177
donor community that they are following sound economic policies and that they have the institutional framework to provide the conditions for all individuals, however local, to make their maximum contribution to the programmes; in short, countries which strive toward the principles of good government and respect for human rights.
We are contributing as much as we can to the sort of reorganisation which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated would serve the developing countries well. I believe that whereas we can show that British money is used through the bilateral programme most effectively, we could do better in the case of the EC. As a member state we intend to play our full part with the Commission in attaining development objectives just as good as those in the bilateral programme.
The committee served us all extremely well. I am grateful to all its members and all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. We will work on the reports and continue our work with the Commission in a firm effort to obtain a much more effective EC development programme.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full and informative reply. I thank also all other noble Lords who took part in the debate for their constructive comments and, in some cases, their kind remarks. At this stage I wish to make just two brief points.
As I said at the beginning, we started by accepting the EC aid programme as a fact of life. We did not consider the justification for its existence. Had we done so we would certainly have had two—possibly three or four—different views on it in the committee. However, one aspect was not touched on in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, talked of the ACP states and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested that next time we should get away from London and Brussels and go to the field. We did not do that. However, we took evidence from Dr. Berhane, the Secretary-General of the ACP group, and saw the ACP ambassadors in Brussels. A point that they all made forcefully to us was the advantages of multilateral as distinct from bilateral aid. In a debate where all the emphasis was on arguments for bilateral aid, it is worth remembering that there are arguments on the other side relating to a guaranteed minimum contribution; obtaining contributions from countries which might not otherwise be making them; and also, according to some recipients, being more free of political strings or connections. Therefore, there are arguments both ways. But if there is to be an EC aid programme, which clearly there will continue to be, it is vital that the money is well spent. The debate has shown a general feeling among your Lordships that there are grounds for improvement and obtaining value for money.
My second point concerns the general feeling, about which almost every noble Lord spoke, relating to the squeeze on our bilateral programme. It is extremely difficult to define what is a critical mass—the point at which the squeeze results in consequences which are intolerable. I do not believe that any member of the
1178
committee wanted to give the impression that that had yet occurred or that we were anything but impressed by the way the ODA carried out its functions. However, we felt that we were getting near to that precipice, and every noble Lord who spoke endorsed that. I hope that the House will continue to be vigilant and ensure that that precipice is not crossed—where the critical mass of our own bilateral programme deteriorates to the extent where quality is lost.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EC Aid and Trade Policy: ECC Report
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on EC Aid and Trade Policy [27th Report, Session 1992.93, HL Paper 123]. —(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting (Restrictions on Holding of Licences)(Amendment) Order 1993
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is made under powers in Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990. On 24th November my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced that he proposed to make changes in the regulations governing the ownership of the regional ITV companies. He made it clear that the proposed changes were subject to parliamentary approval. The purpose of this draft order is to give effect to those changes.
The draft order amends the present order restricting the holding of licences, which was made in May 1991. Article 2(1) amends Article 3 of the 1991 order. Its effect is to remove the distinction between licences for the nine areas with the largest advertising revenue and those for the other six areas. Article 3 of the 1991 order prevents anyone from holding two licences in the nine large areas. The draft order would remove that. restriction, except that no one could hold both the London licences. The overall limit on holding no more than two licences remains. The other changes are technical. Article 2(2) removes from the 1991 order provisions which have already ceased to have effect, and the references to them.
Although I am a comparatively new recruit to the broadcasting scene, I know that your Lordships have taken a particular interest in ITV ownership matters, both during the passage of what became the Broadcasting Act 1990 and subsequently. During the last year there have been a number of Questions on those issues and on 31st March there was a debate on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa. A number of your Lordships have also taken opportunities

1179
to discuss these matters with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as well as my noble friend Lord Astor and with me.
During the debate in the spring, a number of your Lordships urged the Government to extend the so-called moratorium. That is the provision in the Broadcasting Act 1990 which requires the Independent Television Commission to approve any takeovers of companies holding Channel 3, or ITV, licences before they take place. Under the terms of the Act, it is due to expire at the end of the year.
The impression is sometimes given that this provision prevents any takeovers of ITV companies. That is not the position. It is an inhibiting factor, and I accept that its existence would tend to discourage hostile takeovers.
I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State considered carefully whether or not to extend this provision, particularly as he recognised the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House on the issue. There was no consensus among the ITV companies. Some were in favour of extension while others were against.
My right honourable friend made a particular effort to hear a wide range of views on the issues on ITV ownership. He made sure that all the companies, both large and small, had an opportunity to explain their position to him directly. He consulted the Independent Television Commission. Other interested organisations, including representatives of the advertising industry, discussed their views with him or his officials.
During the year it has become increasingly clear that broadcasting throughout the world is going through a period of considerable and rapid change. The number of services has been increasing, particularly satellite and cable services. More services will become available in the next few years with the introduction of digital transmission technology. The technologies of broad-casting, telecommunications and computers are beginning to converge, and this development is likely to proceed rapidly in the years ahead.
It has also become clearer that traditional broadcasting services of the kind we have had for the past 40 years will be only a small part of a very large range of services of entertainment, information and education which will be available. By the year 2000, people will be able to pick and choose from a wide variety of sources of news, information and entertainment, including films, videos, music and computer games. Some of these services will be interactive. People will be able to pay for individual items as well as whole services. This is a complete change from the small number of general television services which we have had until comparatively recently. It was only last year that we were celebrating the tenth anniversary of the introduction of Channel 4.
The changes are taking place not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world; they are opening up a global market for broadcasting services. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade are anxious to ensure that United Kingdom broadcasters are well placed to take advantage of these opportunities, building on their
1180
successful exports of high quality programmes. The ITV companies have, for many years, sold programmes successfully to overseas broadcasting organisations.
These developments world-wide may help to explain why my right honourable friend concluded that extending the moratorium, and the ITC's control over takeovers, was not a sensible approach to a world which was opening up new markets. It is unrealistic to believe that we could, through legislation, provide a period of stability for ITV, when rapid changes are taking place in the rest of the broadcasting world. In these circumstances, trying to stand still is likely to develop into rigor mortis.
The moratorium has achieved what it was intended to achieve —a short period of stability during the transition from the old ITV system to the one introduced in January this year. But we cannot protect the ITV companies indefinitely from the disciplines of the market and this should not be necessary. The Government want the British public to continue to have the television services which they value. ITV services are watched by more than 90 per cent. of the people in this country every week. We also want to sustain the production base for the broadcasters' programmes throughout the United Kingdom. Nearly three-quarters of the programme output of the ITV system is original programming, made specifically for ITV's audiences. The programmes reflect the United Kingdom's traditions and culture, and that of its regions. The Government want programme production to continue and to grow throughout the United Kingdom.
One of the important features of the ITV system is its regional nature. My right honourable friend would not have proposed these changes if he thought they would put at risk the regional programming and regional production which are valued features of the ITV system. The Broadcasting Act places requirements on the ITV licence holders about regional programming and production. These are reinforced by conditions of the ITC licences, which include the promises about programmes made by the companies when they applied for licences. The ITC's licence conditions also require that 80 per cent. of the regional programming is produced in the area.
We know that the commission will enforce these conditions. It is required, by the terms of the Act, to assess each year how far the ITV companies have complied with their licence conditions. If any licence holders do not comply, the commission has to include information about those failures in its annual report, presented to Parliament.
The ITV companies believe that the regional nature of the system is one of its strengths. They know the regional programmes are valued by their audiences. Whatever the legislative or licence requirements, it will remain in the ITV companies' own interests to keep their regional programming and production. I understand that regional production has increased in the first nine months of this year, compared with 1992.
However, not all the companies consider that regional licences have to be supported by fragmented ownership. There are, of course, a variety of views among the ITV companies about the best way for the

1181
system to develop. But they all accept that some consolidation of ownership is inevitable. They differ about the degree of consolidation, and the speed at which it should take place.
It is the Government's view that some consolidation at this stage could help the ITV companies to flourish in the new global market for broadcasting.
Under the terms of the draft order there would have to be at least eight companies in the ITV system, holding the 15 regional licences. The conditions of the licence about regional programming and production remain, even if there are changes in ownership. I commend the draft order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, a great deal of the feeling about the order is concerned with the question of the moratorium. The period of moratorium was inserted into the Broadcasting Bill in this House. There was nothing in the original Bill. There was a feeling on all sides of the House that a period of stability was essential to enable the legislation to proceed in a way that was to the benefit of television. The ITC supported the idea of a moratorium and was ready, like many of your Lordships, to have a longer period. Many of us wanted a year while the Act was being prepared and then a period of two years afterwards so that it could get into its stride without having to look over its shoulder all the time to see whether somebody was creeping up to take over a particular company.
We want the question of ownership to be looked at with consideration, together with that of the BBC charter. Broadcasting is a total environment. To break it up in this way, so that we have this part now for independent television, and then at the same time to have consideration about the future of the BBC does not make much sense. It should all be considered together. The various Green and White Papers should be linked so that one can look at broadcasting overall to see what the future holds.
As regards the regional dimension which the noble Baroness mentioned when she introduced the order, the ITC believes that it can be held. But nevertheless there is a potential for damage here where some of the companies do not feel that they are an intrinsic part of a region but somewhat semi-detached. We have had promises that there will be no redundancies when the mergers or takeovers take place. But I believe that to be phooey. I believe that there will be redundancies, and so do many people working in broadcasting at all levels, particularly in programming and production.
The Government are trying to clear up the mess they made with the 1990 Act, but in a piecemeal fashion rather than as a whole. So there are a great many misfits, and perhaps I may give one example. If the ITV mergers are allowed, the Government, the ITC and the other regulatory authorities must turn their attention to the issue of ITV advertising sales houses. At the moment these companies are allowed to sell no more than 25 per
1182
cent. of ITV air time. But ITV dominates the advertising sales market and could squeeze out new competitors like Channel 4 if its power is uncontrolled. Therefore, the 25 per cent. limit must be kept for the foreseeable future. It is time that the Government went back to basics on this occasion, which the Prime Minister often talks about. There is no time to lose. Quality has already deteriorated and repeats are tripping over each other all the time.
The idea that this relaxation will prevent the European giants like Berusconi and Bertelsmann from swallowing up our companies is absurd. They are probably bigger than all of our companies put together.
For 35 years our television has been an engine room of creativity, serving the viewer well. Now we have corporate bun fights. I believe that the first many of us knew about the Carlton Central takeover or merger was in the news, when people were seen throwing champagne over each other. The merger had not been through Parliament and nobody knew about it. I had tabled a Question on the subject and I did not know what had happened. I thought that something had occurred of which I was unaware. This was a case of jumping the gun, which was very bad.
Less and less time goes into programme-making and the two takeovers or mergers currently to be read about in the press mean that about £2.5 million a week has to come out of programming funds in order to repay the Treasury for the moneys which are still being paid for the auction that preceded the 1990 Act. It would be ludicrous if it were not doing so much harm. The whole exercise has shown contempt for Parliament, for ITC and for the viewer. All that matters now seems to be the bottom line—that is to say, with a broadcasting system ever more geared to financial performance and less concerned with producing programmes of interest in our cultural life. It is for those reasons that I feel very sad at the thought that this order will undoubtedly go through tonight. But the Government can still change their mind and extend the moratorium. I wish that they would, but I do not have much hope.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should declare an interest in this matter as a non-executive director of Carlton Television, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Carlton Communications plc which has the television franchise for London midweek. Carlton Communications has made an agreed bid for Central Television, subject to parliamentary approval of the order now before the House. If the order is approved and the bid goes through, Carlton Television and Central Television will in effect be sister subsidiaries of Carlton Communications.
I should like briefly to commend the order for your Lordships' approval. It represents a sensible, if modest, relaxation of the arrangements resulting from the moratorium imposed in 1991 and will enable, the independent television industry to carry out a degree of consolidation and rationalisation which should further strengthen the industry in the face of competition from overseas, particularly from European companies. It will

1183
enable it to achieve a degree of synergy and a sharing of overheads which should increase the resources available to be put into programming.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, it has been suggested that it would be preferable to extend the moratorium for a further year. I understand the attractions of that suggestion, but I share the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, about the reasons why it would be preferable not to extend the moratorium. In any case, I am not sure that it would really be a viable option. As I understand it, it would not prevent European companies from moving in to acquire blocks of shares in independent television companies which would be insufficient to provide immediate control, but would be sufficient to provide a useful platform for subsequent bids for control once the moratorium came to an end. As a protection, therefore, the moratorium is by no means watertight.
I do not believe that the passage of this order would put at risk the distinctive regionality of existing services. As the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, pointed out, that is laid down as part of the conditions of licences and the terms and conditions of such licences will be unaffected by this order. Certainly, so far as Carlton and Central are concerned, the two services will continue to be distinct in regional terms as they are now. I doubt whether the viewers will be able to detect any loss of regionality in the programmes. Indeed, I believe that they will continue to see very much what they have already become accustomed to seeing. The benefits behind the scene, if I may put it that way, in terms of sharing production facilities and overheads are expected to release, if anything, more resources for the programme making which is after all the raison d'être of the companies concerned.
I therefore commend the order as a necessary if modest contribution to the strength and effectiveness of the independent television industry in this country, and as an enhancement of the industry's ability to resist incursions from overseas, particularly from European television companies, into the British market.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am delighted this evening to be the sole supporter from these Benches of my noble friend Lady Trumpington on this order.
The new rules which are proposed for the ownership of ITV licences are both necessary and sensible. They are necessary because ITV cannot grow, or, longer term, even survive, if it is restricted by an ownership structure which was devised nearly 40 years ago. They are sensible because they allow existing ITV licensees to take a modest first step forward towards rationalising their organisation.
Resistance to change and progress has been a factor which has damaged many British industries in the past. The fragmentation of ITV, and the duplicated costs which came with it, was not a burning issue when the channel enjoyed a monopoly of television airtime. That monopoly has now gone, and ITV must be given the opportunity to respond to a period of growing competition.
1184
Within the UK, ITV now competes directly with Channel 4, which is clearly in commercial good health. It also competes with a growing number of cable and satellite channels. Soon we shall have digital television and many more UK terrestrial channels. ITV must be allowed to move with the times and to respond creatively and effectively to those challenges.
This year, ITV will spend over £500 million on new programmes for British audiences but, despite that, our trade balances are already starting to fall behind the rest of the world. They are moving steadily into the red. In 1985, Britain enjoyed a £25 million surplus. In 1991, that had fallen to a £100 million deficit. By the year 2000, that deficit is forecast to reach over £600 million as new channels are filled with cheap, imported programmes.
That makes it even more important for ITV companies to be able to combine their strengths. The old 15-company fragmentation is simply too inefficient and managerially slow to respond. The British television production industry, including the BBC, needs to take money out of the overhead and put it on to the screen.
ITV companies must be allowed to grow to a size which will allow them to compete with international media companies. Broadcasting has changed beyond recognition since the 15-company area map was introduced in 1955. ITV needs a strong domestic base and the confidence to meet new players from the US, Europe and Japan.
I think that any objection to changing the rules is misplaced and see no reason why a change should threaten ITV's regional services. Ownership has never been a regional requirement, but programmes have been and will continue to be. Opponents of the new rules should be aware that there is not now, nor ever has been, any requirement that each ITV licence should be owned within its region. Most of them are already controlled from London, which is irrelevant to their viewers. Quite simply, regional ownership is not an essential guarantee of regional programmes. The real guarantees of regionality are five-fold. They are the terms of the 15 licences granted by the ITC in 1991; the powers of the ITC to enforce them; good regional management; the popularity of regional programmes; and the ability of the owners to support and sustain the broadcasters.
Whatever mergers may take place, each of the 15 regional Channel 3 licences has to be delivered to the satisfaction of the ITC. Each licence enshrines the promises of the winning bidders in 1991—setting the precise number of hours and minutes of programming which must be broadcast. Specific categories are listed and regional production, as my noble friend has reminded us, is protected by the requirement that 80 per cent. of regional programmes must be transmitted in the licence area.
The ITC has the power to deal with any situation where these quotas are not being met and is ultimately able to withdraw a licence, making any company which is seriously defaulting on its obligations liable to losses running into millions of pounds.
It is entirely right and proper that the commercial opportunities which the Government wish broadcasters to develop should be accompanied by rigorous scrutiny

1185
of the output by the regulators. That is their function and, if we cannot trust them to monitor the regional obligations of the 15 ITV licences, then we cannot rely on them for their scrutiny of the rest of the output. The ITC has an important role in the years ahead and it is simply absurd to pretend that commercially restrictive ownership rules are a more workable way of protecting the public interest.
A more practical guarantee for regionality, and one on which the ITC will insist, is that each licence should maintain its own district identity, with its own committed regional management. Indeed, it makes commercial sense for any licence owner to engage the best regional talents to work in and manage the television station.
Common sense also suggests that regionality is a valuable commodity in ITV, valued by both viewers and advertisers. ITV is the only commercial channel in the UK with this distinctive regional character. As competition grows from the satellite channels with national coverage only, it makes sense to maximise the impact of regionality.
The final support for regionality is of course the financial health of the licence owner and of the ITV system as a whole. No promises about programming have any value unless they are backed up by the ability to meet production budgets. The 1991 franchise round produced a wide range of winning bids and now some licensees look less able than others to keep up a high level of commitment to network and regional programme budgets. Only if an orderly process of amalgamations takes place will the duplicated overheads of the old system be made available to programme making in the future. Ownership mergers are not a threat to regionality; on the contrary, they will provide the efficiencies through which regional programmes are sustained in the future.
In conclusion, I should like to turn to a final misconception. There are still those calling for an extension of the so-called moratorium on takeovers, claiming that we should take time carefully to consider ITV ownership together with all the other issues which the changing world of broadcasting is throwing at us each day. I am not sure there has ever been a moratorium. The word does not appear in any legislation and the ITC has no power under the 1990 Act to ban foreign takeovers. It does have power, under Section 21 of the Act, to refuse a change of ownership, if it considers this "appropriate". According to its evidence given to the Select Committee on National Heritage in October, in paragraph 38 "appropriate" meant that it would oppose a change of ownership only if it believed that a prospective new owner was unlikely to maintain the quality of service. There was nothing about foreigners or hostile take-over bids.
If the so-called moratorium was extended for another year or two or three, I cannot see that it would stop a well-founded European company from buying an ITV licence, nor prohibit it from taking minority stakes in ITV licences in anticipation of future full bids.
Even if this order is not supported because of false claims that it threatens the regional traditions of ITV, from 1st January 1994 European companies will have
1186
the ability to take over ITV licences while we continue to forbid existing large licensees to merge. Does anyone believe that it will be a better way of maintaining the quality of ITV or enabling UK broadcasters to play a bigger role internationally if they are penalised in their home market in favour of foreign interests?
The clock cannot simply be stopped. In Britain we are good at television and proud of our television production industry. The new rules offer a first step to ensure that we allow it to succeed in the challenging years ahead.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am chairman of Meridian Broadcasting, a licence holder for the south and south-east of England. As the Minister pointed out, we have discussed this and associated issues in the House on a number of occasions. The most extensive recent debate was possibly the one introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, when we discussed the moratorium. We have discussed many other issues, however. We discussed some of the problems that arose from the Broadcasting Act 1990; some of the structural faults in the industry; and some of the technological changes of the past few years, which require the Government to look again at the provisions of the Broadcasting Act.
With one exception, noble Lords were broadly in agreement in the debate on the moratorium that there was need to extend the moratorium so that matters could be looked at. There was also agreement that change was necessary. It is important to understand that there is no one in the industry standing against change. The argument is about the pace and scope of change. What we have in the order is a narrow, rather timid, and, I would suggest, somewhat illogical step which takes us not too far down the road that we need to travel to have a properly liberalised, deregulated industry.
The choice, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Birk, was between a piecemeal change to ownership and a comprehensive review. The ITV companies themselves were broadly split down the middle on the issue. There were those who wanted immediate change on ownership and those who wanted the broader approach. We have ended up with neither. What we have is a half-baked measure.
In the other place, the Secretary of State indicated that the purpose was to strengthen the competitiveness of the UK industry generally. He cited two issues:
"First, I want to ensure that the British public keep the television services that they value and that the diversity of choice that they have is maintained and extended".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/93; col. 436.]
I am not sure what the order does to ensure that the British public keep the television services that they value and that the diversity of choice is maintained. Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
The second objective was to sustain the production base for broadcast programmes in the UK. Here again, I am somewhat puzzled to see how the order achieves that objective. Your Lordships will remember possibly that the most devastating blow dealt to the production base in the UK was the provision in the Broadcasting

1187
Act 1990 which called for competitive bids. The competitive bids, while they enriched the Treasury, unfortunately impoverished the industry. The industry is a great deal more efficient now, and can become more so, but several hundred millions were taken out of the kitty and that money is not available for production.
Far more important than ownership arrangements is the fact that the production industry in this country relies upon money going into regional programming. The proposed measure does nothing to eliminate the error made in the Broadcasting Act 1990. I should again be grateful if the Minister will explain what help it does offer.
In the debate on the moratorium I described the present ownership laws as quaint. I said that they prevented the natural coming together of companies into larger, more efficient units which could eliminate the duplication of selling and administrative costs. So I am with many of your Lordships on that point. However, I was somewhat understating the case when I said that the rules were quaint. I believe that the rules are bizarre. The changes being made today do not make them any less bizarre.
The Secretary of State said that he wanted to strengthen the competitiveness of the UK industry generally. Competition is normally measured by reference to the share of a particular marketplace. Indeed, the competition authorities, competition law and competition practice seek to ensure that no one unit gains too large a share of the market. Conventionally, 25 per cent. is considered to be about the size of the market, as defined by the monopolies authorities. What we have here is a new definition of "competitiveness"—one that I believe would probably fit neatly into the world of Alice in Wonderland, because if we look into the wonderland of the new competitive world of ITV we see that it is not decided by reference to market share but by reference to the number of licences that one holds.
The Secretary of State, in his wisdom, and the Government deemed that two licences equal one big competitive force on the international market. My noble friend referred to one takeover proposal already announced—the merger of the London weekday franchise with the franchise for the Midlands. That would create a company having more than 30 per cent. of the market—well over, your Lordships will note, the 25 per cent. Parenthetically, I should like to ask the Minister whether the order deprives the competition authorities of the power to review and to define the market. Are we talking about 25 per cent. of terrestrial advertising or 25 per cent. of just Channel 3? By one measure, that is well in excess of the normal 25 per cent. rule.
Continuing in our Alice in Wonderland world, we have the prospect of two companies—one with 1 per cent. of network advertising spending and the other with 2 per cent. —joining together to create a powerful competitive unit which will no doubt send shudders around the media conglomerates of the world. It is an absurd situation. It is doubly absurd because it ignores completely what is already permitted under the selling arrangements. Here, as my noble friend pointed out, 25
1188
per cent. of the network can be sold by a single sales point. So we have the position at the moment where, let us say, the London Weekend company may wish to extend its arrangements with the Yorkshire and Tyne Tees companies beyond the sales house arrangements that it currently has. The sales house arrangements give it something like 20 per cent. of the network sales but would prevent it acting as I have described. Where is the logic in that? Where can it be logical to supply up to 25 per cent. of sales—one of the primary services supplied by the industry—but not logical for the ownership rules to follow that? I should be grateful for some illumination from the Minister.
What we are left with is an unsatisfactory and incoherent model. Noble Lords have stated that this is a first step. Indeed, it is a faltering and a rather false first step. The Secretary of State promised a further review of ownership rules. He said in response to a question in the other place that in the coming months the present restrictions on cross-media ownership should be looked at again and, indeed, that that was the intention. When pressed he said that he intended to do that within the next few months. I wonder whether we can be told by the Minister what is intended and when the Secretary of State will pronounce on the issue. I urge the Secretary of State to consider not just the cross-media ownership, which is an important issue, but a number of other problems and concerns raised by the television industry.
Above all, the television industry needs to know where it is. We have had a tremendous amount of change. We had the Broadcasting Act 1990; we have had new licences starting; we have had new network agreements that are only just being put into place; and we have all the problems and growing pains of the new network arrangements. What we now need is a period of stability. I have operated in a number of industries which have been deregulated. I have to say that it was done in a far more efficient and less cack-handed manner than is proposed in the order. The relevant regulator set out clearly, "This is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to work and to operate for the next five or 10 years". We have had no such guidance from the Government as regards this measure. We have had one step with the promise of another step, which leads we know not where.
I suggest that the Government commit themselves to a comprehensive review of ownership—and I mean also cross-media ownership—and that they remove the illogical and bizarre structure that they are in danger of creating in ITV. They need also to review the role of the regulator which should cover the entire industry. At present we have a somewhat anomalous position, of which I am sure noble Lords are well aware. The regulator has a particular interest in the programmes that are broadcast terrestrially but has little or no influence over programmes broadcast by satellite. As far as the viewers and the British production industry are concerned, that should be immaterial. But it is not. The regulator is unable to have any real influence over satellite broadcasting.
The Secretary of State should also review the structural problems arising from the 1990 Act. I wish to name three. The first is the arrangement whereby small

1189
companies receive, in effect, a subsidy. They pay less into the network pot. Approximately £36 million is paid by the larger companies towards the running of the smaller companies. That is a long-standing arrangement but in the new deregulated world it is out of date.
Secondly, I suggest that the Secretary of State reviews the basis of the cash bid. In particular, he should enable companies to have their bids renewed after four years as opposed to the present six years. There is considerable merit in doing that. It would enable the ITC to make an earlier adjustment to compensate for the cluster of unexpected changes in the broadcasting environment and to underpin the resources for meeting or increasing licence obligations. The Government have argued that the new system for awarding TV licences would enable the Treasury to obtain a fair return from a scarce resource. However, the scarcity value of that resource—the ability to broadcast on the Channel 3 spectrum—will be reduced by the proliferation of new channels sooner than anticipated.
There is a strong case reviewing the cash bids and levelling the playing field to some extent. That would enable more money to be put into programming and would also leave ITV better equipped to deal with the proliferation of channels, most of which are unregulated, and able to buy their programmes inexpensively from abroad. That would level the competitive playing field.
The third issue which the Secretary of State should address is the fact that our licences cover only analogue broadcasting. As was mentioned by several noble Lords, the "digital revolution" will enable many signals to be broadcast on the same wavelength. If the technology is introduced and implemented, it is important that the ITV companies secure the right to broadcast on that digital spectrum, otherwise they will again be further hampered in the competition with satellite.
In summary, I find the measure disappointing, illogical and incoherent. It is a fudge by the Government. It is a step on the way they are not quite sure to where. They are not quite sure when they are going to make the next move and they are not sure what the next move will he. We should be told. The Government have said that they regard the broadcasting industry as important not only in cultural and domestic terms but internationally. It is important that the industry is told the rules of the game for the next five years. We cannot continue with a system in which the rules are changed every 12 months, in this case by ministerial diktat. The Government should stop tinkering and should address the fundamental issues if they are to assist the competitiveness of the industry, benefit the viewer and sustain the British production base.
7.55 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, in speaking for the first time from these Benches, and after several years of absence, I fear that my rustiness will be only too apparent—perhaps like a television presenter whose autocue is on the blink.
I too declare my interests. I am a former member of the General Advisory Council of the IBA, serving at a
1190
time when the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was the distinguished chairman of the authority. I advised on the only completed merger of Channel 3 licences, and I continue to advise a Channel 3 licensee. I work with a number of film and television production companies. Finally, I am on the board of an advertising agency. I hope that that variety of interests at least encourages a balanced view, even if I cannot claim the depth of involvement and experience that applies to other Members of your Lordships' House; for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Hollick, and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.
While I may have taken a special interest in the television industry, which has encouraged me to speak this evening, I believe that this subject is of substantial importance in a wide range of areas. It may be a coincidence of timing that the GATT negotiations today hinge on resolving the impasse between the USA and the European Union over the treatment of film and television production, but it is also a powerful reminder that we are dealing with an issue that is more than a sideshow on the world stage—or screen.
US film and television production represents that country's second largest export earner after the aerospace industry. While that may explain the vigour with which the United States has fought its audio-visual corner in the GATT negotiations, it is also an example to the United Kingdom, with the natural advantage in the world markets of the English language, of what an important part of the economy the television and film industry can be.
The counter-position of the European Union, and of France in particular, in the GATT talks also reflects anxieties which are prevalent in the UK and are at the centre of some of the worries expressed by your Lordships tonight and by the country at large. Television is the most popular manifestation of our national culture—and that of most other developed countries—and very few people in this country will feel indifferent about the way in which television programming develops or how it affects film, theatre, art and other parts of our cultural life.
The tension between the development of television as an industry and its role as a flagship for popular culture is what the Government and their appointed regulator, the ITC —and the IBA and the ITA before—have sought to resolve. Within the Government it is symbolised by the revived interest of the DTI in the industry and the differing viewpoint which that department may have from the Department of National Heritage.
It is difficult for the regulator of any industry, or for the Government acting in an essentially regulatory capacity, not to fight yesterday's battles. In a market economy it is likely that the initiatives for growth and expansion will come—and should come—from the participants in the commercial marketplace, with the Government or the regulator testing, when appropriate, whether any particular step is in the public interest.
In looking back and taking a broad view of ITV's development and the role of the Government and their appointed regulator, it is difficult not to feel that the balance between regulatory promotion of a cultural

1191
ideal and the creation of a framework within which a successful industry could grow was rarely achieved. While the commitment to local programming and the regional nature of the ITV network, which the regulators promoted, undoubtedly brought benefits, too often the regional tail wagged the industry dog. In the 1970s and the 1980s ITV companies, which may have seen their franchises as the base for building a larger media business, tended to see this adversely affect their chances of franchise renewal. I have no doubt that this was one factor which contributed to the decline during this period of the British film industry, for which the ITV companies should have been the natural long-term partners.
Even if the Broadcasting Act sought to establish a lighter regulatory touch and a more market-based system, it was clear even at the time that, in detailed implementation, that was not the case. Although the ITC has advanced its arguments as to why it decided to re-advertise licences in 1991 based on an unchanged map of regions (while all the time expecting consolidation to occur at a later stage), that decision caused acute problems for the applicants or re-applicants for the smaller licences because of the uncertain cost for them of network programming, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, referred; and that has led to an early change of regulation, with the resulting disruption, uncertainty and arbitrary allocation of value. It must have been better to advertise licences, with whatever sub-regional programming requirements were needed to provide the desired level of local service, which were already viable and strong potential members of the network without artificial subsidies or arrangements.
I believe, therefore, that the lesson we can learn from that particular piece of history is that gradualist change is likely to create as many problems as it solves, although the abolition of the distinction between large and small licensees is welcome in starting the process of consolidation. The maintenance of a limit of two licences can only lead, as other noble Lords have argued, to the weakening of some of the licensees which, for predominantly arithmetic reasons, may remain outside the major groupings that form, like wallflowers at a teenage dance. While that, in the short term, will be to the disadvantage of those particular licensees, in the longer term, through the continuing destabilisation of the network, it will disadvantage the industry as a whole to the detriment of its contribution to employment, exports and the country's economic prosperity and of the quality of programmes available to viewers.
In that then I have common cause with what I understood the Labour Party spokesman in another place to believe; namely, that there should be no restrictions on the number of ITV licences that could be held and that normal competition policy should determine the ceiling, whether that be achieved through the control of two or five licences. However, I must differ with the Labour Party and noble Lords on those Benches as regards the belief that an extension of the moratorium would in any way have been beneficial to
1192
anyone. This is not a very complicated issue and, even if the Government have managed once more to snatch a degree of muddle from the jaws of logical deregulation, there is little evidence that more time would have necessarily enhanced their decision-making. And while it would be wrong to paint a portrait of continental European invaders poised to set sail from the Bay of Biscay on 31st December, it cannot have made sense for any relaxation of rules relating to intra-ITV mergers or takeovers to have been held back and introduced only in response to a specific bid by a continental European or other unrestricted company.
Although the ITC had advocated an extension of the moratorium, during which it could have maintained a greater degree of control over any consolidation process, the reality is that once the ITC had approved a merger or takeover, it would have found great difficulty in justifying blocking any other offeror for the relevant licensee which would not otherwise have been ruled out or disqualified. I believe then that the ITC should feel relieved that it has not been placed in that position, and if its response to that is that the extension of the moratorium would have led it to block all mergers or takeovers, then I suggest that we are very much better off, even with this imperfect step.
The argument that the moratorium should have been extended to prevent any further change of licence ownership, pending a full review of the cross-review media restrictions, seems to me to be equally unconvincing: first, because it seems quite fair to allow a degree of consolidation within the industry after 40 years of restrictions that were clearly tighter and more arbitrary than those applying to the newspaper industry; and, secondly, because I see no reason why any such consideration requires a further extended period. Television and newspapers have coexisted for over 50 years, if the BBC is to be included, and it is three years since the passage of the most recent Broadcasting Act. Consideration has a tendency to fill the time available.
If my speech is not to risk conforming to the same principle, I shall not address in any detail the issue of cross-media ownership. I would suggest only that there is often a confusion in the anxiety felt about the concentration of commercial interests and market share on the one hand and concentration of editorial power on the other. The former anxiety can and should be addressed once again by the normal competition procedure of the Office of Fair Trading and, where appropriate, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The latter concern is obviously the one unique to the media industry and requiring specific attention. In that respect, it is worth noting that the federal network system of ITV, which is likely to continue even after substantial consolidation, does not lend itself easily to the imposition of editorial views by any one owner of a licence or licences. Moreover, in most countries television has tended to be relatively unpoliticised, although the surprising recent intervention of Mr. Berlusconi in the Italian political arena is an exception to that rule.
I believe that the consolidation of the ITV companies can be achieved with the powers already afforded to the ITC under the Broadcasting Act and under the terms of

1193
the individual licences without any change to the quality of local services. Even though some mergers, such as that of Carlton and Central, are likely to strengthen network production outside London, it would be naive to believe that there may not be in other cases some rationalisation of network production between merged companies.
In her desire to maintain the quality of programmes, with which I and all other noble Lords undoubtedly agree, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is misguided in seeing profitability as the enemy of that quality. In fact, it is a condition for it. Quality programming, whether regional or prime time, should not be pursued by broadcasters only because it is required by their licence, but rather because audience ratings, as is demonstrated every day of the week, respond to good programming, which in turn generates the advertising revenues on which the ITV companies' operations and profitability are dependent.
In conclusion, I commend the order to the House, with regret only that it does not introduce more complete and balanced change and will inevitably need to be succeeded in the foreseeable future by a further order. This and future regulatory changes may place the onus very heavily on the enlarged ITV companies to achieve the economic benefits that a vibrant television and film industry offers. But that, in a market economy, is surely how it should be.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for the very clear way in which she explained the Government's position on the order. She played a sturdy innings but it remained a very, very sticky wicket on which she was playing, although that was not her personal responsibility.
The defects of the order arise directly from the blunders of the 1990 Broadcasting Act; in particular, its auction process. Two thousand pounds for the lucrative Midlands region but £37 million for a licence in neighbouring Yorkshire clearly left distortions which cannot be sustained in the long run. I believe that there is general agreement in the House on that point. However, this is not a long run; it is a very short run of a Government retreating before pressure. The present system has been running for less than 12 months. Indeed, the companies that have been putting on most of the pressure and which are at present scrambling to merge are those that have not been in any difficulties. One of the ironies of the order is that the company most protected by it is Yorkshire, which is the one with the most financial difficulties.
If there was a case for any short-term immediate change in the Broadcasting Act, it was some measure to provide reciprocity as between other countries in the European Community and ourselves as regards takeover bids. We pressed that point strongly in Committee, failed to convince the Government and it has now caught up with us. It is the Government's responsibility that that is so.
The Minister is absolutely right to say that the technology of broadcasting is changing radically and steadily towards a multi-channel world. However, from
1194
these Benches, we strongly believe that the sensible course for the Government would have been to look as a whole at the likely landscape of broadcasting in the 21st century and make coherent and consistent changes. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, thought that those of us who urged that line were simply taking a standstill position. I do not think that that is right. A perfect opportunity lies in front of the Government for following that course, bearing in mind the fact that they have to produce a White Paper on the future of the BBC next spring. That would present an opportunity for a major new broadcasting Act covering the whole field of broadcasting in the following year.
I believe that the future of the BBC should be decided alongside the future pattern of ownership for ITV, together with the creation of fair conditions for competition with the new providers of satellite and cable services to the family television screen, many of which, as the Minister said, are providing more than television services. Equally, a new broadcasting Act should introduce fair deals for other media owners other than Mr. Rupert Murdoch. We look for an assurance from the Government that the future of the BBC will not be treated in isolation and that there will he no more piecemeal tampering with ITV ownership. Instead, we should have a new, comprehensive and rational broadcasting Act by 1996.
In the meantime, what are the short-term consequences of such a misconceived order, if the Government are able to carry it through your Lordships' House this evening? I should point out to the Minister and her colleague on the Front Bench that there would be a very strong case for voting against the order tonight in the light of the almost total unanimity that there was on the issue in March, which was the last time that your Lordships' House debated such matters. If the proposed mergers do go through, it will put a great deal of power in the hands of one or two companies. Those that are presently joining in what the Independent Television Commissioner calls the equivalent of a "scramble for Africa" include Granada and Carlton.
It is true to say that Granada is a distinguished programme maker. I listened with interest to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. I profoundly hope that he is right in his belief that a merger would improve programme making. However, Carlton is not a programme maker with a programme making tradition behind it; it is a programme publisher, and is none the worse for that as that is part of the provisions of the present. Broadcasting Act. But it has still to win its spurs in the programme field. As regards the responsibilities it is seeking to take on, it would be better to be well aware of the situation.
The present scramble is no doubt good for the shareholders, some of whom are doing extremely well out of it. However, I am not at all sure that it is equally good for viewers. It is true that there will be some savings of overheads, although I think that they have been greatly exaggerated in the merger ideas that have been canvassed. However, such takeovers do involve the deployment of very substantial resources in bidding

1195
to take over the other company. I suspect that there will be some considerable pressure at the end of the day on the resources left for programme making.
The Independent Television Commission recognises, as I do, that consolidation within ITV and a reduction in the number of owners is inevitable. However, the commission argued for an orderly approach, as we are doing to changes in ownership. Of course, its wise advice has been disregarded by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, indicated his belief that all would be well because the ITC would be able to hold the ring. It will certainly be left holding the baby, with the tough task of preserving programme commitments against powerful economic pressures pulling the other way.
My favourite television company is Grampian, in the north-east of Scotland on my old home ground. Rightly or wrongly, it feels seriously threatened by the consequences of the order. It commissioned a nationwide NOP poll which showed the value placed by viewers on regional services. Interestingly enough, Grampian was considered the most popular across mainland Britain with its local news and local interest programmes. It is also equally interesting to note that by far the worst performers in the poll, in the view of viewers in London, were the London companies. I do not quite know what conclusions one can draw from that, but I believe that it is worth giving it just a little meditation.
Channel 4, the remaining jewel in the commercial television crown in this country, I believe is also at some risk as regards the consequences of the order. Channel 4 has done well in providing a measure of distinctive competition for advertising time on television. But it remains a minnow in comparison with the ITV companies whose commanding position in the marketplace enables them to demand premium rates for their advertising time and to earn together 75 per cent. of Independent Television revenue. Channel 4's ability to compete and maintain its present remit depends to a substantial extent on the ITC maintaining its rule that no individual ITV sales operation can offer for sale more than 25 per cent. of ITV total revenue. Now that the Government have given way on their merger rules, the heat is now on for a retreat on the 25 per cent. rule. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said. I hope that that pressure will be resisted.
As has also been mentioned, there is also a legitimate interest of the advertising industry in the change. It has an interest in the regional vitality of the ITV system just as the viewers do. Satellites cannot provide regional coverage. Even Channel 4 sells in macro regions which are considerably bigger than the ITV regions. A national ITV plc, even with regional opt-outs, as has been urged in some quarters, would be a monopolistic monster for British advertisers.
The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who knows about such matters, was right to mention the question of cross-ownership in relation to ITV sales houses. In some ways that issue is as important as the cross-ownership of ITV licences, perhaps even more important. The sales houses in which Carlton, Central, Granada and LWT are
1196
involved together handle 60 per cent. of all ITV advertising. In order to introduce a degree of competition into the marketplace and to protect the minor players—whether Channel 4, the national breakfast contractor GMTV, the fledgling satellite industry —or to look after the proper interests of the advertisers, it is vital that that power is limited by a curb on the potential sales points. That should clearly remain at the current level of 25 per cent. of potential ITV revenue, thus restricting concentration to a minimum of four ITV sales operations. This would provide the necessary competition for national advertisers and a degree of protection from abuse at the local level. It would, of course, still be possible for two licensees generating over 25 per cent. of ITV revenue to be owned by a single group provided that they were represented by separate sales teams with real and effective Chinese walls in operation. There will still be need for great vigilance as regards the pernicious temptation that undoubtedly exists for sales teams representing different contractors to engage in conditional selling. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, was quite right to underline those matters. He asked some searching questions and I look forward, with interest, to hearing the answers.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about the new justification for the Government's ITV merger changes; namely, that it would build mega-companies capable of contributing to our balance of payments with massive global sales of programmes. This vision is said to have come to Mr. Michael Heseltine, the President of the Board of Trade, with such a flash of light and such force that it dissuaded Mr. Peter Brooke from following the more sensible course of taking the advice of the ITC about orderly change.
We were all sorry to hear about Michael Heseltine's illness and we are all glad to see him back on form. However, I am a little sorry that he seems to have spent too much of his convalescence watching television. I know from my own experience that it is a dangerous addiction. I must tell Mr. Heseltine and the Government that in exporting TV programmes to other parts of the world bigness is not enough. The matter is much more complicated than that. Both the BBC and ITV, who have reasonable-records of selling abroad, can tell of the special difficulties of selling British programmes in the USA, and that has nothing to do with the relative bigness of the BBC or the relative smallness of the ITV companies. There are much bigger companies in the rest of the European Community that are owned by people such as Mr. Berlusconi and the Bertelsmann Group. They do not find that simply being big enables them to gain access to the international market place.
American programmes are created first and foremost—one ought to remember this—for American consumption. Their export trade is a bonus on top of that. They reflect a continental American culture which, over 70 years, Hollywood has made a secondary culture for much of the rest of the world. Western Europe, with its diversity of cultures and its internal language barriers, can never be a second America in this sense. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, made some interesting and thoughtful remarks about the audio-visual issue in GATT. I agreed a good deal more with

1197
those remarks than with some of the later remarks in his speech. The GATT row over audio-visual protection gives ample evidence of the complications in this field.
Of course, the BBC and ITV sell overseas, and they will sell more as the multi-channel marketplace expands, but the appeal of British programmes to British viewers is that they reflect our own society and values. That is the way it ought to remain. Of course ITV programmes have to be paid for and make a profit, but they are much more than a purely commercial product that can be traded across frontiers like cars and cans of beans. It is, sadly, the failure to see this that remains the blind spot at the heart of this Government's approach to broadcasting policy.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, apart from regretting that these proposed changes in ITV were announced to the world outside two weeks before Parliament had an opportunity to discuss them, I should begin by conceding that the new TV arrangements could be worse. The Secretary of State was undoubtedly under great pressure to allow a complete and immediate commercial free-for-all in British TV. There are certainly many Conservative Party supporters who believe big is always beautiful and enjoy the thought of total free markets and the media jungle.
The process of mergers which would accompany that would almost certainly conclude with British media—terrestrial TV, satellite TV, radio and news-papers—owned, apart from the diminishing public sector broadcasting, by only two or three media moguls, of whom Mr. Murdoch, by arrangement with the Government, would certainly be one. That would, of course, mean that the British media were safely in Right Wing hands.
Therefore we are grateful to the Secretary of State for resisting pressures for a total free-for-all, or at least so far. That, I fear, may be the next step. But I must say that what we have here, as some other noble Lords have said, is just a muddled compromise—half baked, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, rightly stated—which is why it would be appropriate for this House to have a chance to vote against this order, especially as the usual arrangements between the parties in Parliament are, I am told, no longer operating very happily. After all, what the Government have done allows enough mergers to create uncertainty in the industry, especially as regards whether there is any future at all for the smaller regional companies, such as Grampian, Border and HTV, but not enough to allow consolidation on a large scale and to satisfy the free marketeers.
Basically, it is a disguised admission by the Secretary of State that the ludicrous 1990 Broadcasting Act, with its farce of blind auctions, was a botched job. We on these Benches knew that, and said so at the time, but we did not expect to see it unravelling in the first year of the 10-year licensing system. The basic question is, why? The Secretary of State, and the noble Baroness at Question Time last Thursday, have given no proper explanation. The Hambros Bank document announcing
1198
the recommended offer by Carlton for Central gave, as far as I can find, only one explanation on page 3, where it stated that both partners believe,
"that larger UK television companies are needed to compete effectively on the world stage. The offers for Central represent a significant and logical step in that direction".
The words "consolidation" and "rationalisation" are littered around as concepts that are assumed to be good.
That argument is typical City bunkum and was comprehensively demolished, in my view, by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. These companies do not, and will not in any significant way, compete as world players on the world television stage. Their size remains relatively small; their programme audience and their advertising audience is domestic and will mainly remain so. As programme makers they have relatively little world presence and that will continue to be the case after these mergers. As for their regional programming, in so far as they stick to their licence pledges, that will inevitably be unsuited to the world stage.
If we were looking at different proposals to allow the restructuring of the whole media field, for example to allow the creation of multi-media companies able to compete internationally across the whole media field, that would be different. There is a plausible case for that, but that is not what is before us. This is mini-tinkering of a botched kind.
Hambros was understandably shy of giving the obvious reasons for these takeovers. The reasons are: first, to satisfy the desire of some to become bigger media moguls; secondly, to secure large profits for the director shareholders; and, thirdly, to reduce costs by sacking some skilled and experienced staff and reducing the quality of the programme output. I can see no other practical, financial reasons for doing it. Admittedly, there might have been a case, in terms of financial rescue—this has been mentioned by others—for allowing a merger in the one case where a company is in difficulty as a consequence of the 1990 Act; namely, Yorkshire. But, ironically, at present any way, that company is excluded because of its poison pill; namely, that it has already carried out its merger.
I look forward to hearing a convincing explanation as to why the Government have taken this half bite at deregulation. I am even more interested to learn why they have done it now. Even if one were committed to loosening the 1990 franchise regulations in due course there are good reasons for not doing it now. A number of those reasons have been mentioned in the debate by other noble Lords and have been clearly set out by the relevant regulatory body—the ITC. It has formally and publicly advised the Government and the public of the case for not deregulating now but for extending the so-called moratorium on take-overs until 1995. That is not long, and there is a strong case for it.
The ITC has given three convincing reasons for doing that. First, it would allow a period of stability in the new system of networking. After all, that system was set up with licences for 10 years and is still in only its first year after the upheavals of the franchise auction inspired by that ludicrous 1990 Act. Secondly, it would enable the future shape of the BBC to be decided. That process is well advanced. Last week we had the Select

1199
Committee report on the BBC. In the spring we expect the Government White Paper on the BBC. The BBC is and will be an important part of the future broadcasting picture. Surely we should wait until that piece is ready and in a shape to fit into the media jigsaw.
The third reason for delay given by the ITC is to sort out the shape of those other pieces in the media jigsaw, cable and satellite. They need urgent consideration, particularly the intolerable situation in relation to satellite under which the rules for the Murdoch satellite TV channel are different from and looser than those applying to terrestrial television and Murdoch's satellite channel is apparently allowed brazenly to breach the EC rules on the European origin of programmes. In the case of cable there is the odd situation in which access to cable will almost certainly be totally controlled in North America and, for example, British Telecom is statutorily forbidden to send films down its lines.
We also need and have been promised a thorough review of cross-media ownership. It is surely illogical that national newspapers are allowed to control 100 per cent. of satellite TV but are constrained to only 20 per cent. of terrestrial TV. Surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, argued convincingly, with so much of the media world fluid and currently under review now is the wrong time to take a decision on the ITV part of the jigsaw. Surely the rational and sensible decision would have been, if I may change the image from jigsaws to birds, to get all the ducks in a row—the BBC, cable, satellite and newspaper ownership—and then to take coherent decisions covering those interrelated media sectors. The ITC—the expert body in this area—was right to call for a period of stability and for an extension of the moratorium on take-overs. Why have the Government rejected that sensible advice? I suspect that they may have given way to a self-interested lobby from some of the Conservative Party's main supporters in the media industry.
One consequence is that British TV companies are now open to takeover by predators from Europe, as has already been mentioned. This House discussed that threat in a debate in the spring, as my noble friend Lord Hollick mentioned. At that time it was pointed out how European companies could take over British companies but British companies could not take over any of them in return. They are protected either by private controls or by national state protection. Our only protection in this country is the ITC, whose views and advice the Government obviously do not greatly respect. With one exception, it was the unanimous view from all sides of this House, on the basis of great experience and expertise in the industry, that the moratorium should be extended. The Government have chosen to ignore this House, as they have ignored the ITC. That is why it is tempting to take the opinion of the House.
Britain is now the only country in Europe where foreign companies can take a 100 per cent. interest in domestic commercial broadcasters. It will be of only small consolation to us on these Benches to see the embarrassment of the Secretary of State and the
1200
Government when Bertelsmann from Germany, Berlusconi or a French water company bids for, say, Anglia or even for the combined Carlton/Central.
One of the ironies of this situation is that a larger British company, after merger, will not be protected from take-over as has been suggested. It will probably be more attractive to European giants when it covers a substantial part of the market than when it is a tiddler in its pre-merger form. Therefore, I do not accept those arguments.
I should also like to ask the Minister about two regulatory limits which are breached by the proposed Carlton/Central takeover. The point has been raised and I should like to press the Minister to reply. The first was described from behind me as an Alice in Wonderland world. It is the 25 per cent. limit on advertising revenue for any one operator. Carlton and Central together have 31 per cent. I hope that the Minister will explain the position in that regard. There is also a 20 per cent. statutory ceiling on any single shareholding in ITN. Carlton and Central now have 36 per cent. Will the Minister tell us what the Government and the ITC propose to do to prevent those breaches? Can she give us an assurance, especially, that the 25 per cent. limit on advertising revenue for one operator will not be removed?
One of our main anxieties on this side of the House, as in another place, is the regional dimension to television in this country. The commendable desire to protect and enhance that has underpinned all existing and previous legislative organisation of UK television. ITC surveys have found that appreciation of the regional dimension remains high. Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that the regional dimension will be maintained?
We also need assurances about quality. Central Television has a good reputation for quality of programmes, especially its documentaries. Carlton has not yet established any such reputation. I watched part of a programme called "A Woman's Guide to Adultery" last week and I did not think that it was up to the mark. If the result of the merger is to impose and spread that kind of material over the larger region while losing Central's documentary quality, it will be a bad move for television watchers. I should like assurances on that aspect.
In relation to programme quality one should make the point that the main damage has been imposed by the Government. The costs of bidding for franchises under the 1990 Act and the cost now of mounting hugely expensive bids must inevitably drain money out of the system. Those costs can only be met to some extent by cutting expenditure on programmes.
This has been an interesting and important debate. Many who study the media may feel that the main danger for us is of being out of date and that we should not treat ITV with such great concern because very soon it will no longer be a major player. The dynamic technological change means that the future lies with a multiplicity of satellite and local cable channels. Therefore, by the end of the decade our ITV terrestrial companies will be of little consequence. That may be the case at some time in the future, and I appreciate the

1201
forces which may bring that change about. However, tonight we are dealing with the here and now—the mid-1990's—, and ITV's regional television matters to millions of people.
It is crucially important that the future landscape of the media in Britain be surveyed in a rational and measured way. That should mean that the structure of ITV is considered alongside the imminent proposals for the BBC, cable, satellite and cross-media ownership, to establish a rational and coherent picture. But the Government have not done that. They have merely tampered with a part of it. They have also snubbed and ignored the ITC, which is the body upon which we rely to protect the regional quality and programme quality of broadcasting. They have created uncertainty where we need stability and have left us with the Alice-in-Wonderland tangle that my noble friend Lord Hollick described. For all those reasons we regret this muddled and half-cocked measure and hope, with little belief, for some reassurance from the Minister on the many doubts and questions raised.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in my opening remarks I endeavoured to give the reasons—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would like to listen to me, or perhaps not—why my noble friend the Secretary of State took the decisions embodied in the order. Let me now take up the various points made by noble Lords.
I would immediately say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that, when the Secretary of State for National Heritage made a public announcement about proposed changes to the ownership rules before informing the House, no disrespect to Parliament was intended. The announcement was always going to be very market sensitive and it was important to minimise the effects on the stock market. The Secretary of State wrote personally to several interested Members in both Houses as the announcement was made to keep them fully informed; and Answers were given to Parliamentary Questions in this House and in another place later in the day.
I do not intend to spend a lot of time on the subject of regional broadcasting. I should like to commend the remarks in my opening speech to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I remind them that at the very end I said:
"The conditions of the licence about regional programming and production remain, even if there are changes in ownership".
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn mentioned the moratorium. I was grateful for the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also returned to the subject. I have to say yet again that the moratorium was only ever intended to provide a short period of stability at the start of the licence period, not long-term protection against the normal disciplines of the market. Extending the moratorium would provide little, if any, real or long-term protection to the ITV companies in the future.
I turn now to the Independent Television Commission and the issue of consultation. I am not a
1202
cricketer but I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Donoughue, bowled many a maiden over. However, for all that, I must repeat that, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in another place last week, he discussed the issues with the chairman of the ITC on a number of occasions. He understood the commission's view, which it held during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, that the moratorium should have lasted longer. However, the Government were not obliged to accept the commission's view on that any more than they did in 1990 when they decided that the moratorium should last for only one year after the new ITV arrangements came into force. The Government's decision was market sensitive and the Government's conclusions could not be disclosed in advance. The chairman of the commission has made it clear that he believes that on matters of regional programming it is the licence conditions, not the ownership, that matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, stated that mergers would result in job losses. That is a matter for the companies. Some jobs may be lost but others may be created, especially if British broadcasting is allowed to develop its export potential.
The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, referred to the role of the Office of Fair Trading. The position of the Director General of Fair Trading is not affected by the order. The Director General of Fair Trading operates independently of the ITC. The Broadcasting Act states clearly that the responsibilities of the commission do not affect the discharge by the Director General of Fair Trading or by the President of the Board of Trade of their functions in connection with competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, also asked what the order would do for programme production. The production base is safeguarded by the financial health of industry. That could be helped by greater consolidation than was allowed under the 1991 order. The Government decided on an evolutionary approach to ownership, not sudden deregulation. The question of how to define the market share was considered at the time of the broadcasting legislation. The share of audiences and advertising revenue fluctuates. Ownership seemed a clearer basis for determining questions of ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also referred to cross-media ownership. I believe that I stated in answer to a question last week—I may not have done so—that the Government were carrying out a review which would include all forms of broadcasting, including radio, cable and satellite, as well as the press, and which may go wider.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, spoke of the size of bids for ITV licences. ITC did not award a licence if it thought that a company could not maintain the quality of the service throughout the period of the licence. The BBC charter does not expire until the end of 1996. We cannot hold up all changes for broadcasting until then.
The regulation of advertising sales arrangements is a matter for the Independent Television Commission. The commission's present policy is that it would not expect

1203
any joint arrangements for selling advertising time to account for more than 25 per cent. of ITV's regional revenue in 1993. When it announced its policies in 1991, the commission said that it would review the rules in 1994. I understand that that is still the commission's intention. In accordance with the commission's usual practice, I would expect it to consult widely and seek views from interested organisations. Meanwhile, the 25 per cent. limit remains in force.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, stated that while circumstances are fluid it is difficult to get the ducks in a row—and other bird-like remarks. The 25 per cent. limit on the advertising revenue is a matter for the ITC, which will review the policy next year. Therefore, exactly what I have stated before remains true.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also referred to ITN. Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act the Channel 3 licences must together hold less than a 50 per cent. stake in ITN and no one participant, person or body connected to that participant can have more than a 20 per cent. interest in ITN. Those restrictions are planned to come into force at the end of 1994, a date chosen by the ITC. We have no plans to amend the legislation on the ownership of ITN. However, the ITN ownership restrictions would be included in our wider review of ownership issues.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Hollick, spoke about the dominance of a few ITV companies. Fears have been expressed that the ITV system will be dominated by a few companies as a result of some of the proposed mergers or takeovers, such as that between Carlton and Central or Granada's bid for London Weekend Television. Under the proposals in the order there would have to be at least eight companies, since no one can hold more than two licences. The companies that have held the franchises in London, the Midlands and the North West have been the leaders of ITV for many years.
We want to make sure that there is a strong base of programme production in this country so that there is plenty of UK material to be distributed by the new technologies. That should create new jobs and the UK could become a centre for broadcasting, production and distribution. That will not be achieved if we live in the past and assume that we can hold back the tide of change and technology and prevent sensible partnerships which aim to make the most of the opportunities that the changes in technology are creating.
It takes two sides to tango and we have certainly seen two sides this evening. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn for their remarks. It has been interesting to hear all noble Lords' remarks. If I have omitted answering any of your Lordships' questions, I shall of course write to any noble Lord who wishes me to. But in the meantime I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
8.51 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will remember that on 15th July this summer, by a majority of 60 to 48, your Lordships called upon Her Majesty's Government to give full British citizenship to members of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities who will be without a right of abode elsewhere after 1st July 1997.
Since the Government have taken no steps to implement the will of the House, it has been necessary to introduce a private Member's Bill to give legislative effect to that resolution.
I need not remind your Lordships of the roll-call of supporters of that resolution in July this year, but it included two former governors of Hong Kong and the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who flew here from Hong Kong especially to support the resolution. And support it most eloquently and effectively she did. She cannot be here today, to her regret, but she has written to me to express her support for the Bill.
Everyone who spoke on that occasion, with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke in favour of the resolution. I would not be surprised if the same were not the case tonight. I am delighted to see the noble Earl in a sufficient state, despite his walking wounded condition, to deal with the subject. It is gallant of him.
The Bill will give British citizenship to that small and unique group of people who, after 1997, will have to rely on what is known as BN(O), British National (Overseas) status. That is little more than a travel document. It provides no right of abode outside Hong Kong and those people will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, said, have no right to Chinese nationality. In the opinion of many eminent authorities—that is to say Justice, the International Commission of Jurists, the Commonwealth Human Rights Advisory Commission—that group of people will be rendered effectively stateless.
This is a unique case. What is taking place in Hong Kong and will take place in the next year or so until 1997 is absolutely without precedent. Hong Kong—unlike any other British colony—is not being granted independence. It and its sovereignty are being transferred to another state where British nationals will not have the right to become citizens. That is the heart of the matter: people who are British nationals are being transferred to the sovereignty of another state and under the nationality rules of that state they will not have the right to become citizens.
Finally, and perhaps most irrationally, Her Majesty's Government have undertaken, if the worst comes to the worst, to take those people in. There is no evidence, unless the worst comes to the worst, that they have any desire whatever to come to live in this country, though many of them would be a great asset to us if they did. But, that being the case, why not do one's duty and get

1205
the credit for so doing, instead of being forced, should the worst come to the worst, to accept the worst of every world? That is the position which Her Majesty's Government have adopted. They will not be, or have not to date been, prepared to give those people British citizenship. They have said that if they come under pressure—and that phrase was repeated by the noble Earl in the debate in July—those people will be taken into this country.
Perhaps I may now explain the Bill in somewhat greater detail. It is drafted to provide British citizenship for the non-Chinese ethnic minority groups after 1st July 1997. That small group of people are at present British Dependent Territories citizens, BDTCs. I am afraid that there are many initials to which we shall have to become accustomed in the course of this evening. After July 1997 they will become British Nationals (Overseas), BN(O)s.
The Bill is necessary because of the nature of Chinese nationality law, which is quite frankly and overtly racist. The BN(O) status provides nothing more than a British travel document, it provides neither the right of abode outside Hong Kong nor the right of consular protection within China, which is the one place where one would expect them to want to have consular protection. It is to that group of people that the Bill offers British citizenship. The only consequential provision is taken care of in Clause 2(2), to which I shall turn later.
Now perhaps I may say a word about the clauses. Clause 1 confines the scope of the Bill to those to whom have already referred, that is BDTCs, British Dependent Territories citizens, who are that by virtue only of a connection with Hong Kong. Subsections (1) (b) and 1(3) of Clause 1 make clear that the Bill applies to Hong Kong BDTCs, whether or not they have become BN(O)s. That is because quite a lot of people who are BDTCs do not know that they have become BN(O)s, or rather they do not know that they are still BDTCs. The application form, which is like that for a passport, is such that when the passport comes back it simply tells them that they are BN(O)s. There is no reference in the document to their being BDTCs so there may be a certain amount of confusion. To add to that, if I may put it more obscurely, as all BN(O)s are BDTCs because of the connection with Hong Kong but not vice versa—I am sure that noble Lords are quite clear as to exactly what I am saying—the Bill is phrased in terms of BDTCs. I am sure that that makes everything absolutely crystal clear.
Clause 1(4) and the schedule describe who is a BDTC by virtue of his connection only with Hong Kong. It is borrowed almost word for word—almost verbatim—from Article 2 of the 1986 order. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will not find that in any way contentious. I shall be shocked if he does.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him. I fear that he is misinterpreting his Bill. He said, "by virtue of his connection only with Hong Kong". He means:
"by virtue only of a connection with Hong Kong".
1206
It makes a difference.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I meant "by virtue only of a connection with Hong Kong". I am most grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me.
Clause 2 must be read in connection with Section 14 of the British Nationality Act. I have it by me if any noble Lord wants me to read it. It gives an exhaustive list of British citizens who are citizens—here we have another nice distinction—"by descent" only as opposed to those who have British citizenship "otherwise than by descent". I point out to those who are not learned in these matters that, oddly enough, it is better to have British citizenship otherwise than by descent than it is to have British citizenship by descent. The importance of that is that, if you have British citizenship by descent, you cannot generally transmit that citizenship to a child born overseas.
Clause 2(1) states that those who have been BDTCs by descent will become British citizens by descent. Clause 2(2), which I find the most obscure clause in the Bill, must be read in connection with the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 and keeps those who have become British citizens under the 1990 selection scheme in step with those who have become so under Clause 2(1). If any noble Lord wishes me to explain that point, I can do so; but I do not want to try your Lordships' patience.
Clause 3 brings the Bill into line with the 1981 Act. Clause 4 provides for a two-month delay before commencement for administrative reasons; i.e., for the preparation of passport applications and passports.
That is the end of my explanation of the Bill, except to say that the Bill is drafted in support of the measure that we discussed in July, which, as I said, had the support of every single person who spoke to it with the exception of the noble Earl. The purpose for which it is drafted has the support of two former governors of Hong Kong and the present governor of Hong Kong, as well as the unanimous support of LEGCO. It also has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who was formerly Minister of State responsible for Hong Kong, of Justice, of the International Court of Jurists and the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission. There is only one group of people who appear to oppose it and that is the Home Office. I hope that the Home Office will think better of it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bonham-Carter.)
9.3 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, today and the more so because I was unable to be in my place earlier this year on 15th July when this subject was debated in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may also say what a pleasure it is to see my noble friend Lord Ferrers active in his place on the Front Bench. We much look forward to hearing from him at the Dispatch Box and—dare I say it?—on his foot.
The arguments in favour of the Bill have just been well rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. As he said, they were also eloquently expressed on that

1207
occasion in July by both the noble Lord himself and every one of the other 14 noble Lords who spoke except, sadly, my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the Government. It will not be good enough if my noble friend states again tonight that the Government see the ethnic minorities in the same way as all other British nationals in Hong Kong. They are not the same.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the BN(O) passport, which is the only one to which that ethnic minorities group will be entitled, is little more than a travel document and will, anyway, disappear after three generations. It does not grant the right of abode anywhere except in Hong Kong and it grants no nationality whatsoever.
As for the argument that members of the Hong Kong ethnic community can apply for Chinese nationality, I remind your Lordships, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that Chinese nationality laws are based on race and that (so I am advised) there has been only one instance since 1949—that is, in 44 years—when Chinese nationality has been given to a non-ethnic Chinese. It does not bode terribly well for the prospects for the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong achieving Chinese nationality. Therefore, I most sincerely hope that the Government will acknowledge the will of the House, as expressed on 15th July and will support the Bill tonight.
Noble Lords will not be surprised if additionally I press the case for another, even smaller group of people, to whom I have referred on various occasions in recent months; namely, the locally employed personnel (known as the LEPs). There are approximately 300 Hong Kong LEPs in the British Navy and 1,000 in the Army. They are ethnic Chinese personnel who have loyally and directly served this country —that is to say, the British Crown, not the Hong Kong Government—for many years. They are now becoming only too well aware that their close association with the UK military will hardly endear them to the Chinese and they are deeply worried about their future. Their anxiety can only have been increased in recent weeks as they, along with the rest of the world, watched the negotiations with China break down. I made my views plain on that subject on numerous previous occasions, most recently last week. But I feel it is nonetheless relevant to reiterate that I am most concerned at Her Majesty's Government's stance; not least because I believe that it places the future of the people of Hong Kong, and in particular that of the LEPs, in such jeopardy.
Whenever the subject has been aired in the past the reply from the Government has always been that the LEPs, like other members of the discipline services, were entitled to apply for places under the British nationality Hong Kong selection scheme. That is true. But evidence of their extreme concern, if it were needed, is contained in the fact that in the case of the LEPs demand for places greatly exceeded supply while in other sectors demand was far more in line with supply and the consequent disappointment far less.
The actual numbers are so few and our obligations towards them so great that it seems to me to be
1208
astonishing that they should not be treated as a special case, similar to those who are the direct subject of the Bill. Were it not for my reluctance to jeopardise in any way the success of the Bill I should have been minded to table an amendment to it providing for identical treatment for the Hong Kong military LEPs. I have so far refrained from so doing for the reasons I have just given. However, that does not mean that I shall in any way desist from pressing their case; nor does it mean that the Government can fulfil their responsibilities unless they acknowledge that the Hong Kong military LEPs must also be granted full British passports. Indeed, should my noble friend the Minister fail to give me real encouragement in that context when he speaks, I may still table a suitable amendment to include such Hong Kong military LEPs.
Meanwhile, I strongly support the Bill. When—and I sincerely hope that it is "when", rather than "if"—the Bill, amended or not, becomes law, it will demonstrate to Hong Kong and to the world that this country has not discarded its tradition for recognition of honour and moral obligation, as was so succinctly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, during our debate on 15th July.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, the time is late and it would probably be a kindness to be brief. But that is not in any way to suggest that the subject is not an important one. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, when we last discussed it in July there was widespread support for doing something for this unique group of people. We owe him a debt of gratitude for persisting in pursuit of that solution.
The wording "non-Chinese ethnic minorities" has the drawback of rather dehumanising the group. It is perhaps not as bad as BOCs, BN(O)s and BDTCs; but it suggests a category rather than a group of people. They are real people with real problems, to whom we owe real obligations. Those real people are, above all, from the Indian sub-continent—between 5,000 to 7,000 of them, the number decreasing all the time. They have real problems, uniquely so. There are arrangements for them after 1997. They receive a specific form of travel document. If otherwise stateless, their children receive another form of travel document and so do their grandchildren. However, at the end of that time, there is nothing—unless they obtain Chinese citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, pointed out, that is no easy thing. It is rather like generation after generation climbing up a ladder, the rungs of which become weaker and weaker until eventually the ladder gives out. Perhaps at this time of year one should say it is a beanstalk and the beanstalk eventually gives out!
We have a real obligation to those people. They came to Hong Kong, many of them generations ago, because it was British territory. They served Hong Kong well, many of them in the government and in the disciplined services. Others contributed enormously to the prosperity of Hong Kong. Therefore there are real obligations.
At one time there were plausible reasons for not tackling the problem. It was argued, correctly I believe,

1209
that it would be divisive to do so. But, since the British nationality package, that is no longer so. We had clear evidence of that earlier this year when, in an excellent speech, my noble friend Lady Dunn said that doing something for those people now had the unanimous support of the Legislative Council. So far as I know, there has been no opposition in Hong Kong to such a move.
All nationality questions are enormously complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made that very clear. Because of that, I should like to see the Government take on the Bill themselves. I should like to see officials of the Home Office using all their ingenuity and skill to draft a measure which would hit precisely the problem we are all trying to aim at and nothing else rather than using their skill to block any proposals.
Apart from my noble friend Lady Dunn, another very eminent person who has great experience of Hong Kong is unable to be with us today. I refer to my noble friend Lord MacLehose of Beoch. He has asked me to say how sorry he is not to be present and that he supports what I have said about the need to do something for this group and my hope that the Government themselves will act.
I believe that the ball is now being kicked in the right direction. I should like to see the Government pick it up and run with it themselves. But above all I should like to see it get beyond the goal line.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, about 25 years ago when, with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, none of your Lordships present today was in your Lordships' House, we had a debate which went even later than the debate today. The House was considering a Bill. We had the Second Reading, the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading all between half-past two in the afternoon and eight o'clock in the morning, when we staggered out of the Chamber. On that occasion the Bill was about some Asians who had been domiciled in British colonies for some time—for generations—and had been promised that if they came under pressure from the successor governments in the colonies they would be given citizenship and right of entry to this country.
The pressure arose chiefly in Uganda under a dictatorship but in Kenya as well. The government of the time ratted on the agreement and, supported by the official opposition—the parties were then on opposite sides of the House to where they are now—passed a Bill which denied citizenship to those people. It was a very shameful episode in the history of this country's decolonisation. It was a complete going back on a pledge. Mr. Iain Macleod acknowledged that he had made the pledge on behalf of the Government of which he was a member and that we should stand by it. There was very little doubt that the pledge had been made.
With that memory of my blooding in your Lordships' House—I remember in Committee trying to move amendment after amendment at one o'clock, two o'clock and three o'clock in the morning, with the support of Lord Brockway and my noble friend Lord Foot—it is not surprising that I do not believe that we should take the Government's word for what they will
1210
do under pressure. They did not then and I see no reason why in the future they would do so. Let me put it like this. We ought to be safe rather than that those people should be sorry. It is very important that we not only get an undertaking but that we actually put the Bill on the statute book so that those people have rights on which they can rely.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I strongly support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. This matter has been debated before as well as being the subject of a Starred Question earlier this year. I find it disappointing that Her Majesty's Government have not so far shown any sign of being willing to appreciate the case which has been so clearly made for the Government to look again at their stance on this matter.
The arguments for a change of heart have been strongly put outside this House by the Governor of Hong Kong; the Hong Kong Legislative. Council and the All-Party Foreign Affairs Committee. The case was put to your Lordships in the debate on 15th July by two distinguished former governors, the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose of Beoch and Lord Wilson of Tillyorn; by the senior member of the Executive Council of Hong Kong, and also by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, with all his experience as past Minister of State with responsibility for Hong Kong.
Do Her Majesty's Government not think that this collective wisdom and judgment of so many people, with such a depth of knowledge of Hong Kong, suggest that a more generous attitude should be taken towards the concerns of the non-Chinese and the non-Chinese ethnic minorities of Hong Kong?
The Government have maintained that the BN(O) passport will give its holders a proper nationality. Exactly the opposite view is taken in Fransman's British Nationality Law (1989 edition). It states on page 436:
"a person who is a B.N.O., like one who is a B.O.C., possesses not so much a nationality as a qualification for U.K. travel facilities".
So it comes down to a matter of opinion as to whether a BN(O) passport holder has a recognised nationality or not. This, of course, need not worry the Hong Kong Chinese holders of BN(O) passports because they will be able to take up full Chinese nationality and would be possessors of a special autonomous region passport after 1997. That is not the case for the non-Chinese minorities.
But even assuming that this minority, who for the most part are of Indian or Pakistani origin, wish to become Chinese, it is unlikely that they will be given the chance because, as we have heard, the Chinese nationality law is based largely on ethnicity or race. They will be left with a travel document and not a valid passport.
As regards the right of abode, certainly they have that right in Hong Kong after 1997 as long as one accepts that they will be at the mercy of any amendment to the Basic Law that may be carried out. That is a point which will not be lost on them, as it was amendments to our

1211
Immigration Act 1962 which stripped them of their right to assume full British citizenship in the first place. And, of course, right of abode does not confer nationality.
Concerning statelessness, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, has admitted that even such attenuated nationality as that held by the non-Chinese BN(O) passport holders cannot be passed beyond the second generation and that subsequent generations will indeed be faced with the possibility of statelessness. Do Her Majesty's Government believe that this properly discharges their duty as the sovereign power?
The Government have justified their refusal to respond to suggestions made in this House and elsewhere by falling back on the assurances given on several occasions that, were this minority to,
"come under pressure to leave Hong Kong",
as it is delicately phrased, the Government of the day,
"would be expected to consider with sympathy their admission to the United Kingdom".
In his speech to this House on 15th July, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur referred noble Lords to his words of May 1986, when he stated,
"we should consider it an obligation upon any future government to treat with considerable and particular sympathy the case for admission to the UK".—[Official Report, 16/5/86; col. 1437.]
But what do these phrases and words mean, above all to the 6,000 or 7,000 people whom we are talking about? Who is to decide what level of pressure triggers their admission to this country?
What are these expectations and obligations? I rather doubt whether they would be binding on successor governments; they would merely be something for them to consider. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, pointed out in her speech in this House. on July 15th, it has been the case in the past that Ministerial assurances on Hong Kong have been watered down.
Those undertakings are no doubt well-intentioned but they are imprecise. As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out, they may not necessarily have stood the test of time. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will clarify whether those obligation are a guarantee. If not, will he make that perfectly clear? If those words are a guarantee that non-Chinese minorities will be given British citizenship, I believe that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving them that nationality now.
9.25 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has introduced this Bill following the resolution that was passed by your Lordships when the matter was extensively debated on 15th July. It is difficult to raise new arguments from those that were so convincingly explained in that debate, so I should like to reiterate a few of the arguments that I raised on that occasion.
We are all aware of the enormous contribution both socially and economically that the non-Chinese ethnic minorities have made to the development of Hong Kong and of the fact that many have lived in Hong Kong for generations and have few relations elsewhere in the world. As my noble friend Lord Wilson of Tillyorn has already mentioned, the numbers are between 5,000 and
1212
7,000. I find it difficult to accept the Minister's statement in his closing speech on 15th July when he said:
"It would be difficult to make a special provision to give the ethnic minorities British citizenship".—[Official Report, 15/7/93; col. 414.]
A central objective of Her Majesty's Government in their negotiations with China on Hong Kong has been the desire to protect the rights, freedoms and prosperity of all of the peoples they will hand over to Chinese rule in July 1997. Surely one of those basic rights must be the right of nationality. Despite the guarantees in the Joint Declaration and Article 24(6) of the Basic Law guaranteeing the ethnic minorities the right of abode in Hong Kong, there is a fear among many non-Chinese ethnic minorities that they will at best be granted second-class citizenship by the Chinese Government and could even be excluded from holding executive positions in business and the civil service. I speak with a little experience in this matter because I studied Chinese law at London University and spent a year living in mainland China in 1982–83.
As much as the Government argue that Article 6 of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order of 1986 satisfies those rendered stateless by granting them British National (Overseas) status, many notable jurists claim that that will not be the case. In our debate on 15th July, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the view of Justice is that non-Chinese ethnic minorities are rendered effectively stateless.
Almost all noble Lords who have spoken this evening have said that the status of being a BN(O) does not give a person the right of abode outside Hong Kong and does not give British consular protection in mainland China. Furthermore, it is regarded by most as purely a travel document.
Although the Minister argued on 15th July that there had been a 60 per cent. success rate for those applying for British citizenship under the new selection scheme, is it not the case that points are allocated on the criteria of age, experience, training, education and special circumstances? Surely that points system could favour the more affluent and successful applicants over those who are less privileged.
In reply to the Starred Question which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on 20th October, the Minister said that, while there are strong arguments for granting British citizenship to non-Chinese ethnic minorities, there are equally strong arguments against. The point has already been made that there has been unanimous support from LEGCO, from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the other place, from Justice and from the International Commission of Jurists, so surely the not-contents are up against a formidable opposition which is in favour of the Government showing some flexibility in this case. It is with flexibility in mind that I hope they will consider the passage of the Bill.
As a Member of the Cross-Benches, I tend to be an observer of party politics in your Lordships' House. I am not surprised that such a humane approach has been made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I should have been surprised and delighted if the Bill had been

1213
introduced from the Conservative Benches. Surely with the support of so many Conservative Members during the debate of 15th July., and following the excellent speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Geddes and Lord Willoughby de Broke, the Government should take the idea of a flexible approach more seriously. It is for those reasons that I support the Bill.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I suppose that there are a number of us on this side of the House, and the other side as well, who believe that a strong and rigid immigration policy is desirable for this country. They believe it for the obvious reasons that immigration from other countries, especially countries where people are badly off, seldom helps those countries. They believe it also, because it does not always help us. It sometimes damages race relations in this country.
I start from the proposition that a strong immigration policy is desirable. It was first introduced some 30 years ago, I think, with much opposition from the then Opposition parties, but has subsequently in general become accepted by all parties in this country. Having said that, I believe that there are exceptions. So what are the circumstances in which there should be exceptions?
First, a need has to be shown. The debate in this House on 15th July, and elsewhere, has proved clearly that there is a need for these people to be given the right of sanctuary. We also have to be satisfied that we in this country have an obligation to these people. If we were in doubt this evening, we should have been persuaded by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who described the particular obligations which exist in respect of this group of people. Were we to abandon them when we leave Hong Kong, that would, without doubt, be an act of dishonour which I should have thought we would all be reluctant to see as one of the last acts of decolonisation for this country. I should have thought that we would do much to avoid such an action.
The third criterion for making an exception is that it should not create a difficult-to-fulfil precedent of obligation. There has been no suggestion that to do what is asked for in the Bill would create such a precedent.
Sadly, I feel that we all have a pretty shrewd idea as to what my noble friend the Minister is likely to say at the end of the debate. He is likely to say that the Home Secretary has considered carefully what was said in the debate on 15th July; that he recognises the strength of feeling in the House and elsewhere; but that he has concluded that no new considerations have been advanced which would lead him to take a view different from the view which was taken when the whole matter was considered in 1990. Indeed, he may say that he sees no grounds for changing the Government's long-standing policy on this issue and therefore will not support the introduction of legislation.
In a way the problem is illustrated by the fact that he will be referring to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It was interesting that when the batting order for the debate was published we were offered as the chief Opposition spokesman the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. That is understandable because it is seen by
1214
many of us to be an issue relating to Hong Kong and to the relationship between Hong Kong and Britain. But of course it is a Home Office issue and that is why the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will reply to the debate.
I believe that the issue should be decided by Ministers collectively. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has many admirable qualities. I am not sure that flexibility is one of them. He is a personal friend of mine and I admire him for much of what he stands for. But he is by instinct and by trade an advocate; to him winning his case is a great deal, if not everything. He will take a bad brief and make the best case for it. The worse the case the heavier the blinkers with which he enters the court room. We saw that and the disastrous results that followed in respect of the poll tax, when he led for the Government in arguing the case for it. I believe that flexibility in the design of the poll tax could well have enabled it to work. Indeed, it might have enabled the Prime Minister of the day to survive. I do not ask for a unanimous view about whether that would have been the outcome; I merely give it as the view of one who in those days was not part of the political frame but was a mere observer of politics.
To a lesser degree we saw it when the present Home Secretary, who was responsible for taking the legislation for water privatisation through the House of Commons, was extremely reluctant to concede what was politically essential; that was the access to land owned by water undertakings which were to be privatised. Although the legislation came to this House before I became a Member, I believe that it was in this House that the Government were forced to change their minds on that issue too.
Of all the departments of state, the Home Office has the longest track record of putting forward bad cases for Ministers to argue. The Home Office, as I saw when I spent three-and-a-half years in Whitehall some 20 years ago, is a reactionary, indeed inward-looking—one might almost say constipated—department. There are few Home Secretaries who master it; for far more Ministers it is a political graveyard.
The issue which we are discussing tonight will not go away, nor should it. I support this Government;. I want this Government to succeed. That is why I believe that this issue should once again be reconsidered by Ministers collectively but not with the Home Secretary in the chair.
9.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, by not being my noble friend Lady Blackstone. Although my defects are so much greater than hers, I assure the noble Lord that my noble friend's views on this matter are the same as mine. To drag the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, into such an attack not just on the Government in general but on particular Ministers and Members of the Cabinet requires quite some skill by the Government as regards the way in which they have misunderstood the political and moral climate of this country.
The case for the Bill has been so convincingly made out that very little can be added to that. The noble Lord,

1215
Lord Bonham-Carter, has rightly capitalised on the victory which he masterminded in July. He has given this House an opportunity to show the Government that a vote of 60 to 48 in which 13 Conservative Peers, most of whom are not normally rebels, voted against the Government needs to be confirmed. It needs the House to pass legislation because the Government and the Minister in October of this year conspicuously refused to recognise the strong and unanimous feeling expressed by the House on 15th July.
The facts are entirely clear. It is obviously the case—it has never been denied—that the non-ethnic Chinese living in Hong Kong were brought to Hong Kong by a deliberate decision and invitation of British governments of Hong Kong over a period of many years. Those non-ethnic Chinese have performed valuable service to the Government and the people of Hong Kong. They left their own communities many years ago and often have extremely limited connections with those communities.
When the change takes place in 1997, a range of alternatives appear to be open to those people: first, it is suggested that they should have rights along with the other 50,000 citizens of Hong Kong who will benefit from the 1990 and 1993 orders. In July it was suggested that a number of them have taken advantage of those facilities. But of course that can hardly apply to the majority of non-ethnic Chinese, any more than it can apply to the majority of any of the other citizens of Hong Kong. The 1993 orders, which were approved by your Lordships' House in July, make it more difficult, rather than easier, to apply by imposing a series of deadlines on applications in order, the Government say, to avoid there being a logjam at the end of the period in 1997.
Let us assume—we must do so—that most of those people will not fall into the 55,000 category. What happens then? We are told that they can remain protected by the Sino-British Declaration under the Basic Law. They cannot become Chinese citizens, because it must be said that Chinese citizenship law is racist. Nevertheless we were told in 1986 by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and again by the Minister in July, that, if there are difficulties, their applications to come to this country would be dealt with with considerable and particular sympathy.
But none of those is an adequate answer for a community of hardworking people who have served Hong Kong well. None of those answers solves the problem which was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, when he introduced the Bill; namely, that those people will, effectively, become stateless and that their grandchildren will be totally stateless.
There are additional arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who was not able to be with us in July, made a case for locally enlisted personnel of the discipline services very similar to that made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and I in July. I agree with the noble Lord. I do not believe that it is worth risking the Bill by moving an amendment to it, but the case which the noble Lord made is nevertheless extremely sound.
1216
As has been said, it is very difficult to find new arguments because the Government have not answered the arguments which have been advanced. Those points were made in July and achieved the agreement of your Lordships. This Bill, moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, should also achieve the agreement of your Lordships.
9.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Hong Kong always strikes a note of concord and sympathy with people back here in this country, and quite properly so. Of course, it has done so this evening. The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, deals with a subject about which not only the noble Lord but also other noble Lords feel strongly. We saw that in July when we had a debate on Hong Kong Orders in Council. The noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that it is very difficult to find new arguments. I am bound to say that I rather agree with them.
The arguments previously put forward were deployed both forcefully, strongly and quite correctly at that time. The Government also had to put forward their view. It was an important debate and one which ended in a vote whereby the majority of your Lordships took the view that the ethnic minorities of Hong Kong who had no other form of citizenship ought to be granted British citizenship. The Government took very seriously the matters which your Lordships raised and took note of all that was said in the debate. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary reconsidered the whole position. However, despite your Lordships' views, the Government did not feel that it would be appropriate to bring forward legislation to Parliament which would change the existing arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that he had a pretty shrewd idea of what I would say tonight. I congratulate him on his prescience. I do not think that that is very difficult. I also congratulate him on his versatility in being able to mention such matters as the poll tax and the privatisation of water in a Second Reading debate on a Bill about Hong Kong.
I am bound to tell your Lordships—and I shall disappoint not only my noble friend Lord Marlesford but also my noble friend Lord Geddes—that the Government's view remains the same as it was when we last debated the matter. I should also tell my noble friend Lord Marlesford that I have always admired his knowledge of Whitehall. However, if he thinks that the Home Office (of which I have had the privilege of being an ornament for some six years now) is reactionary, inward-looking—and I think he also used the very unparliamentary word "constipated"—I am bound to tell him that, whatever he knows about Whitehall, that shows he does not know very much about the Home Office. It has always impressed me as being avant-garde, forward looking, exhilarating and an organisation which, in many respects, has to have a little bit of a rein put on it from time to time as regards its enthusiasm to move very abruptly in certain directions.
I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for taking the cudgel into his own hands and for

1217
introducing such a Bill to try to effect that which the Government do not feel disposed to effect. The noble Lord is quite good at riding hobby-horses until he and the horse—and everyone else—gets totally exhausted by the process. He rode his hobby-horse tonight. The noble Lord will not be surprised to realise that, despite all his blandishments and persuasive oratory—and, indeed, that of other noble Lords —the Government are unable to support the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, whose knowledge of Hong Kong is, of course, remarkable and well respected, said that he wished the Government would pick up the Bill and run with it. I can understand him taking that view; indeed, if I had been in his position I believe that I would also have taken that view. However, I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I must disappoint him because we cannot do so.
The Bill before us is a Private Member's Bill and, despite the Government's views, we do not propose to vote against it. That would be quite inappropriate and against the tradition of your Lordships' House. However, I am hound to tell your Lordships what is the Government's view. The Bill is really concerned with statelessness. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, explained that the Bill is concerned primarily with those Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens or British Nationals (Overseas) who have no other nationality and who, therefore, without one of those forms of British nationality, would be stateless. Most of the ethnic minority population in Hong Kong besides having British nationality have citizenship elsewhere—usually of India or of Pakistan. Those who are the subject of the Bill are those who have no second citizenship.
It has been argued strongly—the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, argued this—both today and in July that because of their unique position the 7,000 members of the ethnic minorities with whom the Bill is concerned should be given the security of full British citizenship. It has also been argued in the past that special arrangements should be made on the basis that the ethnic minorities concerned would otherwise be stateless after 1997. As I have explained on previous occasions, that is not the case. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, acknowledges that the ethnic minorities do and will continue to have a national status and it is only if they did not have a national status that they would be stateless.
Specific provision was made in Article 6 of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 to deal with the possibility of statelessness. Under that order people who only had British nationality before 1997—that is, those who had British dependent territories citizenship or who were British nationals (overseas)—would retain British nationality after 1997. They would not therefore be stateless. The ethnic minorities will also continue to have a right of abode in Hong Kong. The Joint Declaration and Article 24(6) of the Basic Law guarantee that the ethnic minorities will have the right of abode in Hong Kong if they do not have a right of abode elsewhere. The Beijing authorities have said that ethnic
1218
minorities are welcome to remain in Hong Kong and that they can apply, if they so wish, for Chinese citizenship.
The ethnic minorities do not at present of course, have a right of abode anywhere else other than in Hong Kong. This position will be no different after 1997. In the Government's view there is no reason to suggest that the change of sovereignty should threaten this particular group and that they should, therefore, he given special treatment in the form of a right of abode not in Hong Kong but in the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke was worried about what would happen to these people in the future. If problems do arise, and if the ethnic minorities were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, we have said many times—the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to this this evening—that the government of the day would be expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said he remembered the case of the Asians in Uganda. I also remember that. The noble Lord said he did not trust the Government. Perhaps he did not, or does not do so, but of course the government at that time was a different one to the present Government. However, I realise he was talking about governments in general, irrespective of political parties, and I can sympathise with the general scepticism that automatically flows from all people as regards governments.
Of course one cannot ever tie any government into the future because one does not know what situation will emerge. But I can only repeat the assurance that, if the ethnic minorities were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and if they had nowhere else to go, the government of the day would be expected to consider with considerable sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom. However, these people do not want to come to the United Kingdom. They want to remain in Hong Kong. There would, therefore, be no long-term benefit in their becoming British citizens.
I always think there is something mildly incongruous in saying that in order that these people should stay in Hong Kong, where they want to stay, we should give them citizenship of the United Kingdom, which would enable them to come to the United Kingdom where they do not wish to come. What they want to do is to stay in Hong Kong. At present those who hold British dependent territories citizenship passports are free to come to the United Kingdom without a visa, but they do not have any superior rights of stay or employment over those who come from other countries and who are subject to normal immigration controls. After 1997 the position of these people will be exactly the same as it is now.
I do not wish to get into all the technicalities of Clause 2 of the Bill and the legal and citizenship minefield which that encapsulates. I would only say this. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was wise to steer clear of that issue, although he referred to BDTCs and BN(O)s and British citizens by descent and British citizens otherwise than by descent. He nearly got himself confused, as well as the rest of your Lordships,

1219
and I do not propose to add to that confusion. However, if the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in Clause 2 were to be put into effect, they would in fact give citizenship benefits both to the ethnic minorities and to the spouse and child beneficiaries of the selection scheme which are not enjoyed by other British citizens who are born abroad. Clause 2 would enable those people to pass British citizenship to their children and, to a limited extent, to a further generation. That would be a privilege which is not enjoyed by other British citizens who are born abroad. In schoolboy language, "That's not fair".
These are complicated matters. We took the action which we considered was necessary for Hong Kong in 1990 when we passed the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act. It was our view at the time, and it was also Parliament's view, that the selection scheme arrangements, together with the immigration assurance, struck the right balance between maintaining confidence in Hong Kong and limiting potential immigration to the United Kingdom. That has been achieved and there are no new special circumstances which would justify our making different arrangements for the ethnic minorities now. Their ties are with Hong Kong rather than with the United Kingdom, and our primary objective has been to ensure their security in Hong Kong.
My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to the LEPs. That is an extension of the arrangements which is not mentioned in the Bill. The LEPs, like all others in the disciplined services class, have been given places in proportion to their total numbers, which are relatively small. Making more provision for them would undoubtedly result in pressure from other occupational groups where the number of places has been insufficient to meet demand. Parliament decided on a 50,000 limit on places.
For all those reasons the Government cannot support the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, even though I admire his pertinacity, his perseverance and one might almost say, but I will not say, his obduracy in pursuing the issue. He likes to push his boat through the water as far as he can. I admire him for having done so, but I am afraid that the Government cannot be rowers in the boat as well.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long. I must confess that I am disappointed, though not surprised, by the nature of the noble Earl's reply to the debate. I do not propose to engage in a conversation with him and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the precise nature of the Home Office, with which I worked for 11 years between 1966 and 1977. I have a fairly clear view of the degree of its adventurous and romantic disposition and its ability to plough forward in a progressive direction.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have spoken in the debate and for their support for the Bill. I would simply say this about the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The fundamental difference between the two sides in this controversy can be summed up in his statement that the Government
1220
took the view that there was no reason to suppose a change of government threatened this group. I would say in response that the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, concerning the number of applications under the selection scheme indicate that this group do not take that view. All that the Bill tries to achieve is to provide them with a safety net.
The noble Earl said that it was odd that we should advocate giving a right to come to this country to people who do not want to do so. It is not odd at all. They do not want to come to this country unless they are forced to. They fear that they may be forced to and they feel that they should have a safety net. That is what we provide in the Bill, and that is what the Government refuse to provide. That seems to me very sad.
A number of noble Lords in the course of today's debate set forth the reasons of practice and of principle as to why the Bill should be supported. One reason was the need for reassurance, to which I have referred. Another was the need, to which my noble friend Lord Beaumont referred, to be safe rather than sorry. Another reason was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in the debate in July—and was repeated tonight—that the situation had changed since the decision was taken and that the fear that to make a special case for this group of people was divisive no longer existed. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, and other noble Lords made the point that such a measure is an obligation of honour. We owe it to these people. It is rather shocking that the issue should simply be brushed aside as an inconvenience.
I am glad that the Government do not propose to put the Second Reading of the Bill to a vote. We should carefully consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, about the LEPs. They are a special case. They deserve consideration and are particularly vulnerable.
I wish to thank all those who have participated in the debate and to ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Hospital Services
10.1 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for hospital services in London following the Tomlinson Report and the reviews of medical specialties which they established earlier this year.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so because it is over a year since the report by Sir Bernard Tomlinson on London's health care service and medical education. It is 10 months since the Government made their proposals in Making London Better and six months since the review of medical specialties in the capital. At the same time, London's

1221
NHS is facing the imminent threat to its financial resources through the introduction of weighted capitation funding in the next financial year—capitation funding which, it has been estimated, may mean cuts of £100 million over the next five years.
Although throughout 1993 the Government have been promising a speedy resolution of all those problems in which all the pieces of the complex London jigsaw will be firmly welded together, so far there has been a resounding silence. No strategic plan has appeared; and at present London's health care is suffering a particularly destructive form of planning blight.
Nearly everyone who has looked at London's health services agrees with Sir Bernard Tomlinson's general conclusion that some rationalisation and reorganisation should occur. Equally, everyone agrees that there must be proper extensive consultation and, above all, that changes must not just mean cuts.
I am certainly not asking for rapid decisions, which simply lead to hospital closures; particularly if there is no adequate primary care to replace hospital out-patient clinics and accident, emergency and casualty departments, which today many Londoners use because GP services in the capital are so inadequate.
My Question is simply a plea for an end to uncertainty. It is not an invitation to axe wielding. Since the Question was tabled I have been inundated by approaches from those who use the NHS in London and those who work in it. Their general message is that something must be announced soon. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to respond.
Many of the most heartfelt comments have come from health service managers; those who are charged with making the new internal market work. I quote one chief executive who, perhaps with rather typical British understatement, wrote:
"We are making dramatic and difficult changes—we have reduced bed numbers by almost 20 per cent. We have reduced our prices for next year by 12 per cent. To maintain that rate of progress and maintain, any degree of confidence among the staff—in an environment which combines threat with ambiguity—is not the easiest thing I have ever done".
At the same time, the Greater London Association of Community Health Councils, representing users' interests, has produced its own assessment of the current situation. The one I have here is called not Making London Better but Making London Worse. It shows that some hospital waiting lists have lengthened by 19 per cent. in the past year, while this hiatus has been going on and that accident and emergency departments are being substantially cut back. The CHCs say:
"Changes are happening in a haphazard chaotic way".
They, too, call for decisive planning.
I recognise that it is philosophically difficult for the Government to abandon the concept of the market and to adopt "decisive planning" to intervene to manage London's health care, but if they do not there will be chaos.
I shall resist the temptation to re-open the general argument about the overall validity of the market approach to the NHS, although I suspect some of my noble friends will not do so. However, I remind the Minister that there were those gloomy soothsayers who
1222
predicted that the internal market would collapse in year three, precisely because of the kind of problems thrown up by the types of configurations of providers and purchasers that we see in London and, indeed, in other large cities. They are configurations which really cannot be reconciled without a strategic plan. For example, there is little point in a specialty review recommending that cardiac surgery should be removed from hospital A and expanded at hospital B if the purchasers, the local providers of funds, continue to prefer hospital A and finance contracts accordingly. We have seen many examples all round London of that kind of problem arising.
However, I hope that in the future all this may be academic because some of the nods and winks and some of the unofficial briefing that has come out of the Department of Health suggest that Ministers are going to intervene. They are going to dilute the pure milk of the market and take responsibility for managed change. The Secretary of State for Health, in her February statement on Making London Better, spoke of grasping the nettle. We have recently seen special central funding for special health authorities to ease their way into a new system and new funds for some primary care development.
There are also indications that the headlong dash to allow market forces to change everything all at once may be slowing down. I hope that is true and that if the Government are prepared to take time to direct and manage they will take time to consider again three particular issues of London' s health services.
The first question is the old one of whether or not there is over-provision of hospital beds in London. This always seems like Alice in Wonderland to those who use London services, those who are on the lengthening waiting lists or being treated in beds in hospital corridors. Nonetheless, the statistical consensus has been that London should lose about 2,500 beds. But since both the King's Fund Commission and Tomlinson said that in 1992, Professor Brian Jarman and other community health experts have done some additional work on the realities of medical and social care for Londoners. They point out the need for hospital beds to cope with the inner city's ageing, deprived population which is not being supported by scarce community care. Figures have also been produced to show that although London has 12 per cent. of the population, it has only 9.6 per cent. of psycho-geriatric beds and only 4.2 per cent. of the country's voluntary and private nursing home beds.
Of course, in an ideal post-Tomlinson world, those gaps would be filled. However, not surprisingly there is a certain cynicism about new money for appropriate community care and a wish to hang on to acute beds while there is nothing else available. The example of what has happened with the reorganisation of mental health care is the awful spectre which many people consider. It really seems to be an exact illustration of the Belloc dictum that you should,
"Always keep a-hold of Nurse,
For fear of finding something worse".
I hope that tonight the noble Baroness will tell us whether or not the Government are really still convinced that there is over-bedding, in the jargon, in London.
The second major question is about the so-called "centres of excellence". That has become an unfashionable phrase but it is one that describes the special London medical institutions which have world status in both teaching and research. I recognise, as I said earlier, that the Government have given special transitional help to special health authorities—the SHAs. But that does not meet the concerns about the potentially fatal disruption of research and the break-up of specialist teams which could well occur if, for example, local purchasing priorities are exclusively allowed to determine the reorganisation of the Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals in West London, with the Postgraduate Medical School at the Hammersmith being threatened with closure. Nor does special funding for SMAs meet the problem of hospitals like UCH and the Middlesex, which do not fall into the favoured category but have the highest national ratings for undergraduate teaching and research. Their first class work is now threatened by the purchasers in the market, as my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke showed in his Question to the Minister last week.
Those centres of excellence have made the National Health Service what it is. They have given national leadership to national care, national teaching and national research. They have meant that the National Health Service is not just a safety net for the poor but a real world leader in the development of medicine. It is crazy to try to downgrade their work. After all, if we are to look at the NHS as a business—I hope that we do not have to do that exclusively—any good business would put huge resources into research and development. To try to abandon that, simply in order to pursue the ideology of the market at the local level, is purely destructive. I ask the Minister tonight: does every hospital have to be an all-purpose district general hospital, or can managed change encompass both district general hospitals with all their marvellous services to local communities and the centres of excellence which provide the outstanding contribution to national health care?
Thirdly, there is the question of special resources to facilitate change. In a recent letter to The Times the chief executive of the King's Fund echoed many others by saying that there must be clear guidelines for next year which crucially include money to fund capital expenditure. He said that there was all the difference in the world between telling people to merge and giving them the means to do it.
Your Lordships will have seen last month's proposals by the Joint Trust Board of St. Thomas's and Guy's, which wants to co-ordinate their services but to retain both sites because:
"The capital funds to achieve a single site are unlikely to be made available … at this time".
Similarly, the plans geographically to concentrate Bart's, London and the London Chest Hospital on the London's Whitechapel site are meeting financial scepticism even from those who support the merger in
1224
principle. There is mounting concern that if a merger is pushed through without adequate investment there will be a piecemeal division of specialties between the sites, which could well lead to a reduction of overall services rather than consolidation and expansion. Therefore I hope that, even if the Minister is unable to give details of the Government's plans, she will be able to reassure your Lordships that overall, adequate capital investment will be made to facilitate change when it does occur.
There may well be a case for managing change in London steadily but slowly—perhaps, for example, using one part of London as an area of action research to see how well services will settle down; or first making strategic decisions about siting accident and emergency departments and then building the pattern of specialty services and acute bed provision on the basis of those. As I said earlier, my Question is certainly not designed to provoke macho management, let alone an immediate scorched earth policy towards London hospitals. It is to try to get the Government to break their vow of silence on what they intend.
Fourteen months ago Sir Bernard Tomlinson forecast a "spiral of decline" if action were not taken. Ten months ago the Secretary of State said:
"We have accepted the need for radical change. We will deliver it".
I hope that tonight the Minister will tell us how and when delivery will happen.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, when I saw that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, had tabled this Question on the Order Paper for today, I hoped that it would not come up at quarter past 10; above all I hoped that we would have had more of an indication from the Secretary of State in regard to what she is planning to do. It was mooted in the press that an announcement would be made before the Christmas Recess. I sincerely hope that that will happen and that an indication will be given this evening regarding what the future holds.
I agree 100 per cent. with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that the most devastating effect to the health service is the feeling of not knowing where it is going at the moment. As she stated, it was in February 1992 that Tomlinson reported. I remember clearly the Government's response shortly afterwards when the Secretary of State was expected to make an announcement in early February 1993. She did; she set up the London Specialty Review, which was a step in the right direction. But that did not quiet the worries of people in the various large London hospitals.
At that time the implementation committee was appointed. No doubt it is necessary; we need an implementation committee. but I should have thought that we would need some guidance on how to implement before we needed an implementation committee.
There is no doubt that the rationalisation of services is based on the assumption by the Government that there will be financial savings, presumably of revenue. But, above all, what worries me is that there does not seem to be any estimate of capital expenditure to implement

1225
rationalisation. There is limited knowledge and that knowledge is highly underestimated. For instance, the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton hospitals commissioned Ernst & Young to provide costings for closure and relocation to Charing Cross—at one time that was a suggestion. It was found that Ernst & Young estimated costs of £76 million as compared to Tomlinson's figure of £15 million. That is a huge discrepancy. Having been married to a chartered accountant I believe that the chartered accountants are more likely to be correct.
Another example is that of the problems of the Royal London and Bart's, and the new consultative document which was circulating, and to which one had to respond by 10th December, in regard to the amalgamation and creation of one trust for the two hospitals. Can the Minister say how much money has been wasted over the past year in creating the Royal London Trust, which will now need to be dismantled and amalgamated with Bart's? There is a great danger that money was wasted on that exercise. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked: what will it cost to relocate the departments in Bart's at another site?
We all know about University College Hospital and Middlesex. Those two hospitals managed to work well together. But almost every month one hears a different answer to what the solution may be. That is not helpful. It has been said that the same thing applies to St. Thomas's and Guy's.
We cannot decide to close established institutions; we cannot assume that their facilities and expertise are transferable like pieces on a chessboard. Centres of excellence, at the forefront of their fields, which have built up a body of skills, research, loyalty and repute cannot simply be broken up, redeployed and recreated at regional or district level elsewhere. The value attached to tradition, length of service and the corporate ethos may be difficult to quantify but its dismissal would be unwise. That is what concerns me very deeply about the latest proposal that the Royal Postgraduate Medical School may be moving to Charing Cross, abandoning Hammersmith where it has lived very happily and very successfully for many years.
Then there are other hospitals which feel vaguely safe—they know that they will survive as such—like the Royal Free. However, their services are nevertheless to be broken up. The suggestions for the Royal Free, for instance, are that all the transplant services should go, that the dialysis should stay and the children's dialysis should go. It is good that the dialysis is staying because that has to be within reach of patients. But equally, every patient who has a transplant is required to attend at the hospital for a long, long time afterwards to be checked and monitored. A move would mean patients having to travel a long way. Most of the patients at the Royal Free come from north of the location of the hospital.
What disturbs me most of all about the Royal Free is the danger of breaking up its paediatric department, which is one I admire very much. Most of the paediatrics except for accident and emergency are to go to Great Ormond Street. If accident and emergency
1226
remains there it means that the patient will have to be transferred after his initial admission. That jeopardises the very excellent special care baby unit in that hospital.
One could go on repeating examples of the fragmentation of services that we all require. What worries me is that in many cases this will mean patients having to travel long distances. That is not easy in London. It is so easy to say that it is only two or three miles from here to there but to travel two or three miles in London is a lengthy exercise and does not always land you up at exactly the place where you want to be. There is not always a convenient Underground station and there is hardly ever anywhere to park a car.
That is quite apart from all the disruption that has happened to the morale of staff in the hospitals. I know that the Secretary of State gave certain assurances that senior staff, medical professionals and nurses would all be helped to relocate. I have said before that it is not only the top grades in the hospitals that we have to think about. It is all the staff in the hospital. To relocate is not all that easy. People have a life apart from their job. They have a home. They have children who go to a certain school. It is not necessarily possible to accept an alternative appointment somewhere quite different.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether she is perfectly happy about the fact that we have in place, or we are within reach of having in place, the right community services to undertake this enormous exercise of streamlining all the London hospitals and all the specialist hospitals. I do not believe that we have. And, until we have, we do not have the right to deprive Londoners of their services, which are mainly based in the hospitals and not in the community.
I would like to finish with a word of thanks to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for having solved the problem of one hospital. We are all delighted that St. Mark's Hospital will move to Northwick Park in Harrow; that this has been agreed on both sides and that everybody is happy.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, this is one of those occasions when I would have preferred to speak after the Minister rather than before her. I should know much better what I wanted to say if I knew first what she was going to say. However, such is life. I must also admit that when I put my name down last Thursday to speak in the debate I expected it to be on a much narrower front. I was motivated by the reports of the great fears that the decision which the Secretary of State announced as regards the Royal Marsden Hospital last February was in grave danger of being reversed. I confess that that was my motivation in wanting to speak in the debate. I shall attempt to broaden my remarks although I shall use the Royal Marsden as an example of the points want to make.
From the beginning of the proposed reforms of the health service by this Conservative Government some three or four years ago I have consistently and strongly supported the principles of those reforms. I am wholly unrepentant about that. As each year goes by I become more convinced that they were right in principle. I have criticised them pretty heavily at times on detail, but I

1227
have always strongly given my support in principle. I feel sure that the basic principles now being operated will persist and will never be repealed and changed fundamentally no matter what government come to power.
The changes are leading to a much better health service although of course there are serious teething troubles in the transformation of a huge organisation like the National Health Service. After all, it is the biggest employer in this country, if not in Europe. My approval of principle extends to the way in which the Government have tackled the London problem which has been hanging over us for a hundred years. The Government have had the guts to tackle it head on and to provide the Tomlinson Report. Having got that report and following a due but certainly not over-long period of consideration, the Secretary of State made her Statement which my noble friend repeated in this House last February.
I was among most Members of your Lordships' House in believing that the way in which the Secretary of State dealt with the report was admirable. She had come down to a number of what seemed to me firm, basic decisions of principle while reserving a number of more doubtful points for further consideration. My concern now is that it appears that some of those decisions of principle are being threatened. It seems to me that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend the Minister have saddled themselves—perhaps I should say, have been saddled—with a very strange system of decision-taking. It may not be strange to those on the inside, but it is extremely strange to those on the outside. It is not that the matter takes time, because decisions of this kind should take time. Although the issues are extremely urgent they are also very deep and important and basic decisions should not be rushed.
I understand that the Tomlinson Report included the proposal that specialty groups should look at different specialties in the different hospitals. I understand that that was a process which had to go on. I understand fully that that is not a policy-making but more a fact-finding and fact-recommending exercise, which the Secretary of State has to take into account. What has surprised me—indeed, I would say shocked and almost angered me—is that these specialty groups seem to have charged into their subjects as if no decisions of principle had previously been taken by the Secretary of State. Had they come along, looked at all these matters and said as regards the Royal Marsden Hospital, "The Secretary of State has decided that that hospital should stay. What is our recommendation given that fact?" Instead, they have plunged into the matter not only as regards the Royal Marsden, but also other hospitals, as though the Secretary of State had given no thought at all and had made no decisions at all. I find that tiresome. I am sure that patients, doctors, nurses and administrative staff, as well as interested members of the public, are equally exasperated. I understand why there is pressure on the Government to make a final announcement as quickly as possible, and I certainly want them to do so. However, I do not want them to do so without mature
1228
consideration. Therefore, although the matter is urgent, haste may not be a good thing. I say to the Secretary of State, "Please take as little or as much time as you need to form your final decisions and then announce them to us".
My plea tonight is that the Secretary of State should stick to the basic decisions she announced, so far as she was able to, in Parliament last February. I cannot remember whether we in this House actually had a debate or merely questions on a Statement. Those were wise decisions which set people's minds at rest. To a certain extent, people knew in which direction they were heading. They knew that some things were still to be decided, but they believed that certain basic decisions had been made—and firmly made. All the reports which have now been given or leaked to the press—I do not know which—seem to call all that into question. That is immensely disturbing and worrying, not only to staff, but also to patients.
My main purpose tonight is to make a plea to the Government to stick by the decisions they made—in so far as they made them—and which they announced last February. Then, as quickly as possible, they should produce their final decisions in full detail.
Perhaps I may say a little more about the Royal Marsden. It seems to me that we in London face a problem. For many years there has been an over-provision of resources in London in relation to the rest of the country and relative to need. In addition, needs are changing because the quality of general hospitals and other facilities outside central London has improved. Therefore, some reductions have to be made, and they are bound to be painful. The Government have faced up to that and are going that way. However, it is still extremely important that we keep within London centres of excellence—centres of excellence for treatment in particular specialties, centres of excellence in research and development and centres of excellence which patients can visit easily.
When I look at the complex of the Brompton Hospital, the Royal Marsden, the new Chelsea and Westminster Hospital and Imperial College Medical School, it seems to me that tucked into a fairly neat geographical area we have a university city in medical terms, and that to start sending parts of those facilities out to general hospitals in Chelsea and elsewhere is madness. It is a waste of resources to break down a centre of excellence which is of great benefit to patients and which has a great reputation throughout the world. That is not the way to reform.
Specialty groups have now come along, looking at the subject narrowly and with blinkers on. They cannot look to the right or the left but only straight down the ends of their noses. That tends to produce a short-sighted result. I say strongly to the Government, in the interests of staff, doctors, nurses, scientists, students and patients, "Please stick to the basic decisions announced last February and do not allow yourselves to be diverted by the special pleading of people who, I believe, have a very blinkered outlook on the needs of the country."
10.33 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for giving your Lordships the opportunity this evening of asking the Minister some questions about the life and death situation of people living in and coming into London who need health-care. I speak from these Benches with no political axe to grind, but I want to speak from a patient's point of view and to say that, whatever the Government's intentions were when they instigated the Tomlinson report, they have managed to cause patients anguish beyond any person's comprehension.
Maybe the Government realise how insecure hospital workers feel over the upheaval caused by the report and the reviews. All I can say is that it is minimal compared to what is felt by ill and dying patients whose lifeline is a specialist hospital unit. What has this country come to when patients suffering from cancer or renal failure who are fighting for their lives are having to expose themselves to try to save the hospital, or hospital unit, which they know and trust and which is their only hope of survival?
No one would argue that we do not need efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the NHS, but the market culture seems to have a hardening effect on the staff's attitude towards patients. Can the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, put her hand on her heart and say that the report Making London Better has made it, or is making it, better? The emphasis is on cost-effectiveness. The most cost-effective procedure is to let ill patients die. That is what is so worrying when one has a hard and uncaring society. I hope that the debate will do something to alert the Government, who have a mania for closing down so many things, to a realisation that ill people need good management at their bedside as well as at board level.
Beds are needed for patients, and senior staff are needed to support patients and junior staff on the wards. I witnessed, at first hand in a London hospital, a sister on an acute ward on which patients were undergoing serious operations who never went onto the ward. When patients queried why they never saw the sister they were told by junior nurses that she was interested only in management, not in patients. Hospitals are increasingly using temporary staff—known as "bank" nurses—to cut costs. Lack of continuity of care is bad for patients, especially children. Managers who do not know the nurses create a dangerous situation, for many different reasons. One is that nurses sometimes do two jobs to make more money, and fall asleep on their feet.
Two weeks ago I visited a desperately ill patient at one of London's teaching hospitals. The patient and his parents told me that by far the best nurse came from the bank. She had the highest qualities, an abundance of TLC and several qualifications. The hospital would not take her on the permanent staff because it was cheaper to keep her coming from the bank.
Last Friday, I saw my GP in Yorkshire. He had just returned from an international conference in Edinburgh, where Bart's Hospital was discussed. The Americans present said that, if the British Government closed down Bart's, it would be like closing the Mayo Clinic in the
1230
US. Hospitals such as Bart's and the Mayo Clinic are valued throughout the world. Does a good reputation mean nothing to this Government? I heard also last week that Britain is short of doctors. The medical and nursing schools of St. Bartholomew's Hospital are world famous. No wonder we are short of doctors: we have already amalgamated several medical schools. Are we going to shut down more? Is it true that we may have to import doctors?
Why are we getting ourselves into this unnecessary and dangerous situation? A cousin of mine who graduated as a junior doctor last year from Bart's is now working in Plymouth. Young doctors do not all stay in London. They move all over the place. Neither the Government, nor Professor Tomlinson in his report, seem to take that factor into consideration. It is easy to close down a good hospital with the stroke of a pen, but it takes years to build up experts who trust one another and work together.
London is a popular place. Hordes of tourists come to visit and many people come to work here. They become ill and take up acute beds. Has Tomlinson taken that into account? Tonight's London Evening Standard states that London hospitals are full. What are the Government going to do when they close more beds?
The break-up of the medical teams causes disharmony and fear among patients. It destroys teaching and research, and in the long run the operation is expensive in so many ways. In order to conquer some of the difficult problems now facing us, which seem to be insurmountable, does the Minister agree that there needs to be a concentration of good brains, good morale and good co-operation, with decent research facilities?
What do the Government intend to do about the drug-resistant tuberculosis present in the East End of London among the homeless and refugee population? That is not just a health matter; it is to do with bad housing and poverty. But as shown in America, the disease is very dangerous to people who have HIV and AIDS. Why should that type of TB be spreading among women? I mention that because it is a new development since the Tomlinson Report. Furthermore, why has Britain such a bad record of breast and ovarian cancer? It is generally recognised that all forms of cancer should be treated in cancer specialist centres. The Tomlinson Report, the review of medical specialties and the Government's wish to close the world-famous Royal Marsden Hospital has thrown into dismay and disbelief the people with cancer, the people who have been treated and have recovered, the loyal supporters who have done so much to raise money for this frightening disease and the expert staff.
Both the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for health issues in your Lordships' House are women. Women feel that more should be done—instead of sending the morale of specially trained staff and cancer patients spiralling down to rock bottom. What could be worse? It is not only Londoners who are worried about health services. The ripples of hope of new drugs and research have spread from the Royal Marsden Hospital throughout the country.
One of the six specialty reviews is that of children's services. Many families face financial hardship as a

1231
result of visiting their children in hospital. A survey carried out by Action for Sick Children, called "Too Dear to Visit", showed that nearly 6 per cent. of families go into debt as a result of visiting and 26 per cent. said that they would like to visit more. The importance of parents visiting their children every day is recognised by professionals, the Government and everyone else involved in the health and welfare of children.
Families who are suffering emotional strain as a result of a child being in hospital are suffering financially too. The campaigners have met the Minister for Health, John Bowis, who said that the Government would keep the position under review. With Christmas so near, I hope that the Minister will be able to give more hope today. Sick children in hospital should not feel isolated and rejected by their families. Children do not understand poverty and debt and the expense of travel. They just need their parents.
Many people are anxious about the ever-increasing management costs in both primary and secondary medical care. Whole new departments have been established for the marketing of services. I ask the Minister whether her department is monitoring those extra costs and balancing them against direct patient care services.
Last week I sent the Minister a letter from a young man from Wandsworth who telephoned to tell me that he had been in agony because of a rod in his back due to scoliosis. He went to his GP to ask whether he could have an opinion from scoliosis experts at the special unit at Stanmore Orthopaedic Hospital. The GP told him that because of lack of funds that was not possible. He says that he cannot tolerate the pain so he has been given pain killers. That is not a very satisfactory situation for a young man in his twenties.
In The Times on 9th December there was an article headed:
"More consultants to be appointed. Minister pledges to improve patient care".
How can he do that if doctors are telling patients that there is not enough money to send them to the expert
1232
units which can help them? What Ministers and GPs or purchasing authorities are saying does not seem to add up. It is no wonder that patients are confused.
Every time we have a debate on the health of the nation, the Minister says that the health service is treating more patients than ever before. I am sure that that is true, but until the admission figures are broken down each year to new admissions and re-admissions, it is difficult to see a true picture. It may be that a person is admitted several times because of complications. Would that not be useful information to have?
Re-organisation always seems to be very expensive, but is it better? With the contracting culture has come a hard line of treating patients as numbers rather than as human beings. Patients respond to a personalised approach.
With the increasing violence in London through drug-related crime and the use of the gun and the knife, the population of London feels increasingly vulnerable each time an accident and emergency department closes down. We live in a very difficult society but it would be made easier if the needs of communities and individuals were dealt with in a more sensitive and understanding way.
On Friday of last week I was telephoned by a member of the press who is making a film about patients who have died from pressure sores. How can people whose friends and relations have died from such preventable conditions accept that millions of pounds should he spent on managers' cars? It seems to be the patients who are coming off worst. It is tragic that health authorities cannot afford to provide the health care needed by their populations because they have spent so much money on litigation claims.
I asked the Minister a supplementary question on 2nd December about the burns unit at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton. She replied that there are 14 such units which serve London. That may be true for plastics, but the burns unit at Queen Mary's Hospital is the only such specialty with a London postal address. If the Department of Health gets the answer wrong to such a simple question, how can we be sure that the Tomlinson Report and reviews are not also wrong in some of their recommendations?
10.49 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will have listened with the deepest sympathy and appreciation to the speech that has just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I say to her and to the House that it has been an honour to be here and listen to her, because she has gone back to basics.
The general attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is, "For God's sake say something, if only goodbye". That is his attitude towards the Minister. But then, of course, I am familiar with that attitude. I am sorry to have to go back a little into the past, but when the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was five years old, I was in this Chamber helping to pilot the National Health Service Bill through the House of Commons (which was sitting here at that time). Moreover, the Secretary of State for Health, Mrs. Bottomley, had not yet been born. I shall forgive her for that because it was an event beyond her control.
However, this much I do know and I shall recount it to the House quite truthfully—and, indeed, it can be gathered from the records which are still available here; they are not subject to the 30-year rule or anything of that kind. When the Health Service Bill was introduced, I well remember that it was met with the unremitting opposition of the Conservative Party in the other place (sitting opposite to where I am standing now). I remember that, day after day and night after night, they fought it line by line and clause by clause both in Committee and on Report. They even went to the extraordinary step of voting against it on Third Reading.
Of course, the Bill struck right at the roots of Conservative philosophy that the free market—that is, market and commercial forces—should determine everything. The reason why the Secretary of State is in some difficulty today in arriving at the decisions that she is supposed to take is precisely because she has learnt as a matter of practical experience since the publication of the Tomlinson Report, to which I shall refer presently, that the idea of planning the resources of a health service while having it run on commercial and profit-making lines, subject to market forces or the alleged consumer choice of the customer (the patient) does not work; they simply do not mix. You cannot run a service which depends on the vocational dedication of people whether as doctors, nurses, specialists, ancillary workers, or whatever they may be, as a service to humanity within our country and reconcile that with the necessity to subject it to what are called "internal market forces".
The Secretary of State has now found that out, although it is a bit late. Of course, it may well be in conformity with current government practice that she prefers to leave the announcement of any changes that she makes until the Recess. That is the customary device employed by Conservative Governments in recent years: they either put a stooge Question down for Written Answer in the other place or they make the announcement during the Recess when there can be no parliamentary row and when there is always the possibility that additional publicity directed towards the domestic troubles of the Royal Family will drive what they decide off the front pages of the newspapers. We
1234
are well familiar with that technique. However, I hope that that is not the case. I hope that the Secretary of State is in genuine anguish as to the decision that she proposes to take.
I do not propose to become involved in the merits of the opening or the closure of individual hospitals because that is exactly what the Government want. They want everyone to be involved in an internal row, preferring the opening or closure of one or another favourite hospital. In any event, I am not falling into that trap. I am against the whole thing in principle and for a very good reason. The Secretary of State originally commissioned Sir Bernard Tomlinson to draw up a report and the terms of reference were quite correctly set out in Sir Bernard's ultimate report.
Sir Bernard is a distinguished member of the medical profession and the noble Baroness herself has considerable experience, going back over a number of years, in hospital administration. I would not therefore accuse her of acting in anything other than good faith. But as a professional I have examined the report by Sir Bernard Tomlinson. It is a curious document. I repeat that Sir Bernard is an eminent member of his own profession and widely respected as such and I would not wish to detract from that. However, he does not have the remotest clue about writing a report or carrying out an investigation leading up to the rendition of a report. I speak as one whose profession has for many years involved the writing of reports and the carrying out of investigations that are necessary for the production of such reports.
I should have expected Sir Bernard to set out his terms of reference. I should have expected him to go to the Secretary of State to correct any points of detail about which there might have been some misunderstanding. I should then expect his report to state the steps that he or his team had taken in their investigation. We do not know, for example, how many hospitals he visited. I believe he visited three, perhaps four. People may or may not consider that an adequate number, but in point of fact the report does not state how many hospitals were visited. It does not state the authentic source data from which his initial factual analysis was derived.
I should have expected, for example, as the health service involves individuals (they are called customers now) patients, doctors and nurses, that there would be some analysis of the journeys made from patients' addresses into the various hospitals. Such data can easily be obtained from computer records if it is required, allied with data on patients' ages, illness profiles, and other such data. I should have expected that data to be collected as regards those in the hospitals. I should have expected such a factual, objective approach as regards what individuals were doing whether as patients, members of the medical profession, or nurses, engaged in particular hospitals.
Then I should have expected an evaluation of the data that had been obtained. Data are never all one way: there are pros and there are cons. I should have expected the arguments to be deployed in this report for or against a particular course of action. However, there is nothing of

1235
the kind. I should have expected the advantages to be set out in considerable detail so that the whole thing could have been checked.
Finally, I should have expected balanced conclusions with cross-references to the evidence. This is an amateur's report drawn up by a distinguished professional physician but who is not capable of drawing up an objective report at all and who has operated purely on assumptions which he already shared with the Secretary of State as to the way in which the health service should be run. It is what we call in the profession a hatchet report.
It is no wonder that when the Secretary of State considered the report and its implications, he issued the document Making London Better. Incidentally, all these reports have glossy covers and are produced on glossy paper. They are produced at considerable expense so that people cannot afford to acquire them or even read them. They propose a series of steps to be taken.
Then came the difficulties. We know what happened. I know from personal experience, because I have been to the accident and emergency departments of many London hospitals. Therefore, I know what I am talking about. I have listened to patients. The BMA is quite right to say that there is already a two-tier service. I challenge the noble Baroness to deny it. She knows perfectly well that fund-holding doctors get preference for their patients.
The noble Baroness may not know, but I can tell her because I have listened to conversations, that if your doctor (whether or not you are on the NHS) contacts a hospital asking for a particular service the first question asked is whether it is private treatment or on the health service. If you happen to be insured, the second question they ask is what is the credit card number.
That is the way the service is being run at the moment. It is being run half-heartedly, and to the misery of its staff because of the uncertainties. It is also being run to the misery of the patients, who are indebted not to the system but to the people with whom they come in contact. The patients' regard for the nursing staff and doctors is undiminished, because there is a bond of personal conduct, kindness and professionalism. They hold in the utmost contempt the people revealed in the two reports from the other place relating to the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and the Wessex Health Authority. There were grossly inflated salaries. Waste and even fraud occurred among the ever-growing band of administrators, all of whom have various titles—function finders, I imagine, ancillary assessors, or whatever it may be. They are all involved with the internal market, passing bits of paper, because one department has to buy a service from another and assessments have to be made as to costs and the various additional overheads before the service is even provided. This parade of paper drowns the paperwork of the old National Health Service.
As the noble Baroness knows, in spite of all that one or two matters which have occurred since the publication of the Tomlinson Report have been overlooked. Readers of The Times for 11th December will have seen the report of the Mental Health Act
1236
Commission. I do not know whether that was taken into account in the Tomlinson Report. I can find no specific mention of it. The commission concluded that:
"there was an urgent need to change the allocation of NHS resources to give more to health authorities in deprived areas where the pressure on mental health services is the greatest".
That Mental Health Act Commission report devoted special attention to the inner cities, not only in London but also to Birmingham and elsewhere.
This morning there was mention on BBC radio of a new menace which was not even mentioned in the Tomlinson Report: intense pollution in the inner cities. Those are matters which have arisen since the Tomlinson Report.
Therefore, in technical terms the Tomlinson Report is a worthless document. I do not wonder that the Secretary of State is hesitating over it. She may hesitate; she may not hesitate. It matters not. The lie that the National Health Service is safe in the hands of the party opposite will be dispelled, and sooner or later it will redound against the Government and they will he hounded from office.
11.5 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, always speaks entertainingly and provocatively. But he will not be surprised if I do not follow him down that road.
It is good that we discuss this important topic this evening and perhaps elicit from my noble friend on the Front Bench responses which may allay some anxieties. For that opportunity we should rightly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
The worlds of institutional health, research and funding are dangerous areas for the layman to roam. But I am moved to do so today on two grounds. First, I have a general anxiety about the soundness of methodology and process of inquiry underlying reports upon which decisions crucial to the future of London's health care will be based—in short, the quality of the data. Secondly, moving to the particular, I am apprehensive about the future, or even the lack of a continuing cohesive future, for a specific hospital with which I have had recent association.
I have had a scientific background but I am not a medical man. The interest which I declare is as treasurer of the Cancer Appeal which in recent months raised £25 million for the Royal Marsden Hospital. During that time I naturally became very personally involved. I came greatly to admire the specialist skills concentrated at Fulham Road and at Sutton. Inevitably I shall draw my argument by reference to the situation which I have come to know, but the points to be made have a much more general validity.
First, on the quality of the information, Tomlinson's proposal to close the Royal Marsden Hospital and the Royal Brompton Hospital buildings and to relocate to the Charing Cross Hospital was based on a statement by the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority that the consequent saving would be £10.6 million. Disbelieving that figure, the two hospitals sought a costed study from Ernst & Young which showed that, far from saving £10 million, the extra costs involved,

1237
depending on some variable assumptions, would be between £47 million and £62 million. In consequence, we were not alone in suspecting that the problem of the Charing Cross Hospital—a poor building in an unfavourable location—lay behind the proposal.
Be that as it may, having started the blight, that particular Tomlinson proposal was not followed by the Secretary of State. However, hard on its heels came the specialty reviews which in good part resurrected the Tomlinson proposals.
One might therefore ask: what has changed? Certainly not the costs, my Lords. What has changed is the line of argument. As a scientist I was taught that one assembles facts and seeks to draw from them logical conclusions. To start with a conclusion and then seek facts to support it is not good science. Yet the Tomlinson review and the specialty reviews seem to start from the conclusion—it is not substantiated by the evidence—that,
"Single specialty hospitals are on the whole less than ideal for patient care and for research and teaching".
Let us note the construction of that sentence. It is therefore assumed from the outset that each and every one—patient care, research and teaching—is better served on a non-specialty basis. Can that thesis be sustained?
In my view the thesis cannot be sustained on the evidence of the specialty review on cancer. It is a flawed approach, which, equally badly, has been shown to base its conclusions on wrong or misleading information. The principle of peer review is a sound and well tested one. That peer review, however, was not good.
The composition of the expert advisory group which was leading the peer review contained in the event few members with a knowledge of cancer, and even then only in limited fields. None, it seemed, of the review group had experience in managing research and development in a large organisation and at least three of the review group would be seen as direct competitors for research funds with the Marsden Hospital and the Institute for Cancer Research.
Then the method employed: it seems that certainly one of the review team has complained that there was no standardised questionnaire, there was no practice of the same group of people visiting each of the hospitals reviewed. Therefore, one asks, how can useful comparisons be made or sound comparisons reached?
Result: a report so full of inaccuracies and dubious conclusions that legal action is contemplated. Demands for its withdrawal, I am led to understand, received the rather strange response that it has never officially been published, so it cannot be withdrawn. Whether or not it has been officially published, it is easy enough to get hold of a copy. I mentioned it to my wife and she produced a copy for me within about 60 seconds. That specialty review required pages of detailed response to the points it made. This is not the occasion for detail: suffice it to say that the rebuttal ran to no fewer than 13 pages.
Therefore, I would have to say that I share the exasperation expressed by my noble friend Lord Carr with the approach of the expert advisory groups. I say this in sadness because, like him, I support the thinking
1238
underlying Tomlinson. I make it clear that I am not merely arguing for the status quo, I am not relying on the doctrine, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". What concerns me is that, because the approach starts with the disputed conclusion, it is, in the area of cancer at least, swimming against an important international tide.
Maybe outsiders can see us more clearly than we see ourselves. The International Union Against Cancer picks out the Royal Marsden Hospital, together with the Sloan-Kettering in New York and the Gustave-Roussy institute in France, as the chosen model for other countries to follow, citing success—and note this particularly—in all the areas of patient care, research and teaching for basing that model.
In forming that judgment, what does the international union see? It sees world class teaching: 90 per cent. of the UK medics and nurses and a large number from overseas are trained by the Royal Marsden. It sees a critical mass of patients providing a spectrum of disease from the common to the rarest, often in the form of tertiary referral. It sees the synergy of co-location with the Institute of Cancer Research, both in the Fulham Road and at Sutton, over 100 cross-appointments, shared accommodation, a single research and development strategy, joint departments, joint prospects. It sees the synergy from the proximity of other institutions, from Imperial College, the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital and the Royal Brompton Hospital, each producing new interfaces. It sees the potential for discovery from clinical research, when parallel specialists are readily able to call in colleagues with whom they are already familiar, with developments in treatment, as it is said, from the bench to the bedside. In short, the informed observer must see what we have come to call excellence.
Excellence is won by sweat as well as by brilliance. It is won only by assembling individuals or teams with complementary skills, and it is won inch by laborious inch. It is earned of set purpose but imperceptibly over a long period. But that same excellence can be dissipated almost overnight by the disruption of established working patterns and the dissipation of unique skills.
Such a culture of excellence needs a broad balance between doctors, academics, researchers mainly at postgraduate level, nurses, carers, statisticians and whoever - teams which harmonise because they encourage and inspire one another. Break the links and where go the tertiary referrals? Break the links and what inspires the original research? Who trains the expert doctors and nurses?
The Marsden sees its own best future clearly to be on those lines, as a centre of excellence, and has presented its case accordingly. That case seemingly has been brushed aside by the specialty review.
What drives such reviews? Is it dogma? There is at least a large measure of that in evidence. Or is it cost? Here the signals become considerably confused. The Institute for Cancer Research was found by the UFC survey in 1992 to have 89 per cent. of its research categorised as being of international stature, with the remaining 11 per cent. being of national excellence. That placed the ICR 16th out of 175 assessed

1239
institutions and placed it in the top eight medical schools and institutes in the country. If dogma decrees that research of such excellence should be divorced from its integral partnership with the Marsden, why then was the Marsden recently directed by the Secretary of State to apply for trust status from April next year, spanning the period when decisions will be given - or at least may be given - on the specialty review?
I have seen the submission. I have it with me. It is impressive and forecasts small operating surpluses through the year 1996–97. Are minds already closed on that application? I believe that that would be a disgrace.
That brings us to cost. There is a case stated that two-site hospitals are inefficient. The trust proposal does not support that view. Furthermore, Fulham Road and Sutton are 12 miles apart. Working between the two has been shown to be feasible. If Fulham Road were closed and Sutton put into the St. George's trust, as proposed, it is conceded that use of the operating theatres in Tooting would be necessary. Tooting is seven miles from Sutton. Is that so very different? It is argued that good financial management would lead to treating more patients for the same money.
There is a further point which is important but not often mentioned. Many top cancer specialists have one leg in private practice in or near Harley Street. A Sutton-Tooting axis sits less easily with that than Sutton with Fulham Road.
As to cost, so far as I am aware a cost driven argument cannot be sustained. Ernst & Young in its second report estimated a cost of £21 million for the proposed relocation plans. On the other hand, the total provision of West London cancer services as set out in the trust application would cost only £1 million.
Doctors and nurses are opposed to the specialty review proposals. Managers and administrators are opposed to it. Above all, 900,000 patients and supporters who signed a petition to Downing Street are opposed to it. So what is there left to say?
I believe that there is one thing more. Most hospitals depend in part on voluntary financial support. Before its recent appeal, the Marsden could expect in the region of £2 million per annum from voluntary donations. I know what enormous effort went into raising that £25 million over the past three years for purposes which were precisely defined. The flagship of that appeal was the new block in Fulham Road, with its specialist theatres and equipment. It opened in October, just over a year ago—a few weeks before Tomlinson, as it transpired—at a total cost of £17.5 million. We have to ask whether we were flying in the face of government policy, or even warned of any risk of change. We were not. Should we therefore be punished for some indiscretion? Hardly so. Half the cost of that block, almost £9 million, was provided by the Department of Health to match money which we raised ourselves.
How do we explain to the people who gave that money that their money may be wasted? I am left with one conclusion: if closure takes place in those circumstances, with no comprehensible justification or countervailing advantage to be demonstrated, there will
1240
be no such future appeals without cast-iron guarantees of the status quo for long enough to valorise the projects which they are announced to support and to fund.
11.21 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, at the beginning of my contribution I should declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of University College Hospital's shadow trust. Although I declare that interest, it is not my intention to say why University College Hospital should be given any kind of preferential treatment. I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. We should be looking not at the parochial but at the overall provision of good health care for people in London.
However, being a member of that shadow board, I have witnessed at first hand the bewilderment and confusion and the feeling of insecurity, instability and low morale that emerged as a result of lack of decisions in regard to Tomlinson, the specialty review, and the other statements that were made. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who so clearly articulated what many people—consumers of the health service, as we are now supposed to called them—are saying and feeling.
One wonders whether the lack of strategy that is making people feel so insecure arises partly from some hope that the problem areas will wither on the vine before decisions are finally taken. I hope that that is not the case. I want to believe that the changes in the health service were motivated, in at least one dimension, by improvements for patients.
There have been leaks in the newspapers this week. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that it would have been preferable if the Minister had made a statement at the beginning of tonight's discussion. But that is not the way of things. It is crucial that a statement be made soon—not, as one would say in business, of the salami-type variety with a piece-by-piece revealing of the policy which may be evolving. We need a strategy for London. I say that as a non-Londoner. I am from the provinces; I look in awe sometimes at the areas of excellence that exist and wonder why Londoners feel so defensive about their health service. I said that I would not make a special plea for UCH, and I do not. But on any independent assessment it has the best medical college in the country. It trains doctors for various hospitals in the provinces.
Some hospitals are being tempted to say, "Please save us because we are better than them". That should not be what the debate is about. It should be about an overall strategy for the people of London, for the people who visit London and need health care and for the people who come to London for health care which may not be available elsewhere. It is not good enough to say that the intention is to decentralise some of these areas of excellence. One cannot simply pick up a plant which has taken years of nurturing, through commitment and through experience, until it grows into a capital facility and acquires an international dimension and say, "We will now put it outside." It takes years to build up that international accreditation.

1241
I would like to be proved wrong in my view that withering on the vine may be one of the lines of approach. I certainly hope that it is not. I should like to share with noble Lords a situation which has arisen. It is one from which I hope the Government will learn. The Tomlinson Report said in October last year that there was no reason why University College Hospital should not remain. As late as September this year the Secretary of State said that she saw no reason why UCH should not remain as a national and international centre of excellence so long as it could get its budget into line. It had a major deficit problem. It has done that. It took the view that it could not sit there and do nothing as its deficit would increase. So one of the main buildings was closed. There was the pain of staff reductions and redundancies, bed reductions and everything that accompanies that. The hospital was then faced with an announcement, not from the Government but from the Camden and Islington Health Authority, which I have to accept had a serious budget problem of reduced funding over the following three years. There was a consultative document which, if carried through, would have meant the possible closure of University College Hospital. It had nothing to do with the Government; it was the local policy which was put forward.
The authority said that it would not send any routine work to University College Hospital. One cannot do that and at the same time say that there is no reason why the hospital should not remain. We know that a hospital is an interdependent unit. The accident and emergency unit relies on the routine back-up. The routine back-up relies on the specialist provision. The first-class training of doctors in University College itself relies on its links with University College Hospital. The Government imply one thing in their independent Tomlinson Report and then, because of the situation locally, even that perceived policy is knocked sideways.
When the Government eventually make their statement I should like answers to the following questions. Without those answers any policy for London will fall flat on its face. What will be provided for the implementation of any changes? What are the Government's intentions, whatever Ministers may decide in their announcement, to ensure that the purchasers also follow that strategy and do not go off at a tangent on a different strategy because of their financial problems? The back-up for that is essential. What funding will be available for the changes that are necessary?
Tomlinson was not just about health service provision. It was also about education and research related to health care. I know that the Government have indicated that within the next three years they will bring forward a national formula for the funding of education in the medical field. Three years is a long time in anyone's book, and in medical education it is a lifetime. In the meantime the facilities which are available could falter and wither, as I said earlier.
Will the announcement, which we hope will be made before the Christmas Recess and not during it, state what arrangements are to be made for the transition
1242
between now and the national formula for the funding of education in the medical field? What will be the provisions for that?
11.30 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, those of us—and there are at least 1 million citizens—who feel passionately about the future of the Royal Marsden, welcome this debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. It is also timely in view of the impending decision on the future of London hospitals and medical services by the Secretary of State. In my experience it is much more productive to influence a Secretary of State before she comes to her decision than to assail her afterwards, although we shall not shrink from that task either in this House, outside in the country, or through the courts, if that, regrettably, proves necessary.
As my noble friends Lord Carr and Lord Limerick have illustrated, there are a number of Peers who feel strongly on the imperative need to retain the Royal Marsden as a centre of excellence. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who, because of family health reasons, cannot be present for tonight's debate, has asked me to say that he wishes to identify himself with my remarks. We each have our own personal reasons for that commitment to the Royal Marsden and I shall declare my own a little later. While it is our heart that makes us determined to prevent a scandalous destruction of a unique medical asset specialising in that dread disease of cancer, it is our head that we use to reveal the mistakes, incompetence, distortion of facts and sheer prejudice of the so-called "evidence" provided by the advisers to the Secretary of State. These are harsh words, but I propose to justify them.
Let me say at the outset that none of us is against the proposition that a review is timely on the distribution and allocation of resources to meet London's medical needs and services. London should not be immune from such critical cost-benefit analysis any more than all aspects of resource allocation, whether in the public or private sector, should not from time to time be reviewed. It is, however, not necessary, in justification of such a review, for Ministers to trot out the provocative assertion that London is consuming 15 per cent. of medical resources with 10 per cent. of the population.
Even Tomlinson recognised the unique position of London as a capital city and its concentration of research centres, medical schools and teaching hospitals—a service for the whole country. London is an international centre for tourism, with 8 million tourists in a year and a vast commuter population of 1½ million who have also to be taken into account. In any event, who is subsidising whom? As a trenchant editorial in the Evening Standard of 28th October pointed out:
"Is it not true that Londoners pay almost £1,800 more in taxes to the Treasury than they get back in grants and subsidies? Is it not also true that families outside the capital receive an average subsidy of £3,730 from the Government? Is it not true that Londoners pay, on average, £730 more in taxes and National Insurance than someone working in the provinces? Does not, in fact, London subsidise the rest of the nation to the tune of £8.2 billion? Is not, in short, London the milch cow from which the rest of the nation and the National Health Service greedily feeds?"

1243
So let us hear no more about London getting more than its fair share of National Health Service resources.
I now turn to the quality of the advice that the Secretary of State has received on the basis of which fundamental and permanent decisions will be made, including the possible closure of the Royal Marsden. I name two main sources of tainted advice: first, the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority and, in particular, its chairman, and, secondly, the Specialty Review Group on Cancer. The campaign to close the Royal Marsden stems from the disastrous decision by the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority to build the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, a decision which was severely criticised by the National Audit Office and which resulted in a massive overrun of £100 million. The Public Accounts Committee was even harsher in its criticism of that authority. It stated:
"In view of the very high costs of building in London and the generally recognised view at the time that surplus beds were increasing in the capital, we are surprised that the Management Executive in deciding to build this hospital, did not have regard to the wider pattern of hospital facilities in London and the relevant areas of the Home Counties".
The consequence of this disastrous decision was that the gross misuse of scarce resources on that hospital resulted in the cancellation or delay of 24 other major schemes in the region. The ripple effect of that gross management now reaches the Charing Cross Hospital just down the road. As a result of that entirely unnecessary new hospital, Charing Cross Hospital has surplus capacity. So the chairman of the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority and his colleagues in seeking to cover up or minimise the damage of their decision seizes the opportunity afforded by Tomlinson to propose the closure of the Royal Marsden and fill up the Charing Cross Hospital. To justify this, inaccurate estimates were submitted to Tomlinson on the costs of such transfer. The previous scandalous underestimate of the costs of building the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital has now been matched by the deliberate gross underestimate of the costs of closure of the Royal Marsden, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson.
Within the past few weeks it has been reported that the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital is heading for a £1 million deficit and has a surplus of 112 empty beds. What a bureaucratic disaster! And this is the health authority which has the temerity to advise Tomlinson, the Specialty Review Group on Cancer and the Secretary of State on how to rationalise the cancer needs and services in London by recommending the closure of the magnificent centre of excellence of the Royal Marsden. It seems to me that the only way for this regional authority to avoid further public scrutiny and censure for its incompetence is to be rescued by the Secretary of State in her welcome decision to abolish all regional health authorities as presently constituted.
I now turn to the second tainted source of advice—the Specialty Review Group on Cancer set up to advise the Minister on service, teaching and research in cancer in London. The composition of this group has not commended itself to leaders in this specialist field of oncology. Be that as it may, as the chairman of the
1244
group was assisted by the chief executive of a purchasing agency in North-West Thames Regional Health Authority it is not very surprising that the group resurrected the Tomlinson proposal to close the Royal Marsden and transfer cancer services and research to the Charing Cross Hospital. This despite the fact that the Department for Education in assessing the research quality of the nation's academic institutions graded the Royal Marsden as sixth in the country and the Charing Cross Hospital as low as 53rd.
The report of the Specialty Review Group on Cancer has been justly condemned as tendentious, misleading and full of inaccuracies and deliberate mis-information. It is like something out of Alice in Wonderland, "First the sentence and then the verdict".
It is now clear that the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority in its desire to cover up its fundamentally flawed decision to build the Chelsea and Westminster has exploited the assertion made by Sir Bernard Tomlinson that,
"single specialty hospitals are on the whole less than ideal for patient care, and for research and teaching".
That is an assertion made by one man—sincere no doubt, but challenged by his peers not only in the country but throughout the world. I say "assertion" because no evidence is adduced in the Tomlinson Report.
Sir David Weatherall, the distinguished professor of clinical medicine, in his presidential address to the British Association said that improvement in environment and life style together with better ways of delivering health care would not be enough on their own to reduce heart disease, stroke and cancer. What was needed was better understanding through basic medical research. Identifying the genes responsible for pre-disposing people to disease offers us a route to the cause and mechanism of many of our intractable killers.
Leading health experts in the US and Europe have similarly identified single specialist hospitals as the best way forward—particularly in cancer treatment and research. As my noble friend Lord Limerick pointed out, a report issued by the International Union Against Cancer in 1990 states that throughout the world the independent cancer centres, including the Royal Marsden, have been named as the most successful in patient care, research and teaching.
It will be an outrage if this country's unique centre of cancer treatment and research were to be closed, and I dread to consider the impact of such a bureaucratic decision on the lives of present and future sufferers of that dreaded disease.
I have two things more to say. I referred in my opening remarks to the personal reasons which have led a number of Peers to be passionate in their willingness to undertake any action to prevent the closure of the Royal Marsden. In my case, my daughter suffered from cancer and eventually died from that disease. I have experienced and seen the heartbreak and the hope as patients and doctors battle together to combat the ravages of that terrible disease which affects one in three of the population. I have spent days, weeks and months pacing the corridors of the Royal Marsden. Sir Bernard Tomlinson spent four hours at the Royal Marsden and

1245
the chairman of the Specialty Review Group, Dr. Christoper Paine, spent three hours. Those fleeting visits, coupled with the prejudiced and inaccurate data I have referred to, are not the basis on which the Secretary of State should make her judgment.
My second personal comment refers, as did my noble friend Lord Limerick, to the £25 million raised by voluntary donations to the Royal Marsden Appeal. I was chairman of the City and Industry Committee of that appeal and in that capacity approached business and workers throughout this country and abroad to raise millions of pounds. The chairman of the City Committee has written to me expressing the concern of institutions and individuals who had generously supported the appeal and warning that if the Royal Marsden closed, thus wasting millions of pounds, then it would be most unlikely that they would support any future appeal for a NHS hospital. If the Royal Marsden did close, I would feel, as a matter of honour, that I would have the responsibility to write to all those who had responded to my committee approaches, apologising for the Government's action. I could do no less in conscience.
What then is the way forward? I urge the Secretary of State to spurn what my noble friend Lord Peyton has described as the poisoned chalice of misinformation offered by her advisers. She should be guided by her own sound instincts when on 16th February she said in another place:
"After studying further information during our discussions on the Tomlinson report and further appraisals that we were able to undertake, we took the view that it was not a cost-effective option to move the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden hospitals to the Charing Cross site" —[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/93;col. 141.]
She went on to say:
"We are persuaded that there is scope for the development of a Chelsea health sciences centre".
The Chelsea Health Sciences Centre would link together the Royal Marsden, the Royal Brompton, the Institute of Cancer Research, the National Heart and Lung Institute, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital and the Royal Postgraduate Medical School. Sir Ronald Oxburgh, Rector of Imperial College, described that idea, which was commended in February by the Secretary of State, as a,
"once in a lifetime opportunity to create a grouping of medical capabilities and talent that could challenge any in the world of quality and size".
The Secretary of State should be bold enough and courageous enough to grasp this opportunity which she herself so wisely identified last February.
11.45 p.m
Lord Rea: My Lords, I have listened to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate tonight. I agree with almost everything that has been said about London's hospitals. As a general practitioner, I shall take a somewhat different line and ask about the progress that has been made in the plans for developing primary care in the wake of the hospital closures and other changes which are proposed as a result of the two reports that we are discussing.
I wish to follow up the Written Answer given by the Minister, Dr. Mawhinney, in another place on 30th
1246
November (col. 464). It was in reply to a Written Question by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn. The Minister stated that in the 12 family health service authorities in the London initiative zone—otherwise known as LIZ—£40 million would be spent on more than 100 capital schemes in the coming financial year. There would also be 31 voluntary-sector projects, at an additional cost of £5 million, to help prevent admissions or facilitate early discharge. That works out at £400,000 per capital project and £129,000 per voluntary-sector project. I should be grateful if the Minister could describe in as much detail as she can the type of project that is being financed in each category. I shall soon be tabling a Written Question asking her to name each project and to give its cost.
The new health centre in Camden, about which I know, is estimated to cost upwards of £2 million. Will the capital projects involve the completion of new health centres or will they involve merely the alteration of existing buildings? The voluntary-sector projects seem a lot more modest. The developments would be welcome without any hospital changes, but they will be unable to prevent many hospital admissions or permit early discharges without a significant extra investment in primary health care personnel. I refer to nurses and home helps in particular and to investment in more housing. It is impossible to look after an ill, homeless person in the community and difficult to look after someone living alone or with a disabled partner without labour-intensive, expensive caring services. Building up caring primary health-care teams, just like building up hospital specialty teams, is a slow process. It may not be as complex as building up a major specialty team but it takes at least five to 10 years.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us what steps are being taken to attract and retain more district nurses in London. At present, nurses having a great deal of difficulty in finding affordable accommodation. Are FHSAs to be empowered to allow GPs to be reimbursed for employing at least two, if not more, staff? Will FHSAs and community trusts pay nurses directly or in addition to the reimbursement scheme and second them to doctors?
The Question that we are debating concerns hospitals, but we must know what services will be in place in the community before beds are closed. In north-east London, most GPs are not finding it any easier to admit patients to hospitals. In Camden and Islington it has become, if anything, more difficult. The decline in patient demand which is predicted in Tomlinson and in Making London Better is just not occurring. That may be because beds and wards are being closed.
According to a parliamentary Answer given last week by Tom Sackville to Dawn Primarolo, London has lost nearly 5,000 nurses in the past year and has gained nearly 3,000 men in grey suits. I cannot see that that is helping matters with regard to looking after the needs of London's patients.
I had intended to speak briefly in addition about some of London's hospitals but it is very late. I shall confine myself to picking out one or two matters which have not been raised by other noble Lords.

1247
Despite the fact that the retention of the accident and emergency department at UCH was recommended both by Tomlinson and in Making London Better, there has been a hint that it will be closed. I should warn the Minister that, if it were to be closed, it would leave a dangerous hole in the West End. Not only are there three rail terminals close by but the whole area is criss-crossed by Underground tube train routes. A disaster could occur at any time. The victims of the King's Cross disaster were cared for admirably by the accident and emergency department at UCH. Such a disaster could stretch a fully equipped accident and emergency service to the limit.
I hope that the noble Baroness will realise also that the proposed centre of clinical and scientific excellence at UCH Middlesex needs, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, a fully functioning acute hospital at its heart to provide a basis for teaching for clinical medical students and to provide a source for clinical research. As my noble friend said, costs can be, and have been, brought down. The hospital will be and should be trimmed, rationalised and smaller than it is now. But it should exist. Those services at any centre of excellence where teaching and research takes place are likely to be more expensive. They are in any teaching hospital. But they are more expensive because they are better staffed and better run, as they should be in a teaching hospital.
I echo the stalwart defence that was made for the retention of the Royal Marsden. The decision to move it seems to be a grave mistake.
Finally, I stress, as nearly all noble Lords have done, how important it is to preserve specialist teams of excellence which have been built up over years. Once they have gone, it is extremely expensive and takes a very long time to rebuild them.
11.55 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that my sympathies go out to my noble friend the Minister, who has to reply at this late hour to such a wide-ranging debate about hospital services in London. Of course, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for initiating the debate, though I was sorry that her contribution was not more constructive in that she reiterated the problems with which we are all familiar but did not propose solutions to them. I wondered whether the debate was going to be more about politics than health care in London and I was left in no doubt as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who made absolutely clear what he thought about politics in relation to the subject.
However, perhaps I may return to health care in London and declare my interest as chairman of the Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital Trust. The trust, merging two famous hospitals, in in effect a child of Tomlinson. It was born or established eight months ago and I suppose that it might be right and proper for me to give a very brief progress report because much has been accomplished. The hospital administrations and the clinical managements have been merged effectively and economically. A unified structure is now in place and working constructively for the future. The trust's formal
1248
reponse to the Secretary of State's request, made in establishing the trust, that it should consider whether and how all its clinical services should be concentrated on one site, and whether it should retain two accident and emergency departments, was submitted by me to to my right honourable friend at the end of last month.
Our conclusion is that the retention of clinical services on both our main sites represents the best way forward for the trust, but that they should be provided in ways radically different from the current pattern. We have accepted and endorsed the view of our main purchaser that we need retain only one accident and emergency department, and we are recommending that that service, together with its appropriate support services, should be located at the St. Thomas' site. We are recommending that Guy's should develop as the major specialist, tertiary care centre in South London, building on the opportunity offered by Phillip Harris House to provide those services in the state-of-the-art accommodation, designed specifically to integrate clinical, research and teaching facilities for those services.
I should like to make it abundantly clear that our recommendation is not a quick fix or fudge, but a long-term strategy arrived at slowly and after very careful consideration of detailed analyses, largely prepared by independent consultants, and of advice, much of it conflicting, based upon strongly-held but very different convictions, opinions and interests.
The trust board's strategy has been spelt out in detail in the report sent to the Secretary of State. That strategy has the advantages and disadvantages of any consensus conclusions based upon the careful weighing and judgment of varied evidence. Like any fabric of consensus, I well appreciate that determined picking, or special pleading, can begin to unravel the woven threads, but to what purpose? I see no other pattern for progress which can command similar support or general acquiescence. Almost inevitably, continued uncertainty will bring its own harvest of conflict and controversy. There is no doubt that clinical opinion would much prefer a tidy, single-site solution—fully funded of course—but there is no similar agreement about which site should be chosen and financial considerations are evenly balanced between one site and the other. I believe anyway that any such choice—let me put it in stark and straightforward terms—between closing St. Thomas', with its well placed accident and emergency department, or closing Guy's, including its near completed phase III development (Phillip Harris House which, at £140 million plus, at current estimates, is the second most expensive hospital development in the United Kingdom, second only to the Westminster and Chelsea, which has been referred to by a noble Lord who spoke earlier) would not be for the board to make. As I have said, the matter is evenly balanced on financial and other considerations. It would be for Ministers to decide.
The trust board's strategy is not, I frankly admit, the idealistic best solution, but it is both realistic and good and, as such, has a number of important advantages. It can be achieved rapidly and much more quickly than single site solutions which would require significant

1249
extra capital expenditure. That point was referred to by the noble Baroness in opening the debate. It will keep disruption of patient services to a minimum. Perhaps more importantly, I believe it will allow the Government and the trust to achieve three major objectives in London. It will provide a distinctive and radical approach to reshaping acute care in London. One of the major criticisms of London teaching hospitals has been their inability to provide good basic local acute and emergency care alongside specialist departments. There has been a natural tendency for the latter to edge out the former. We have the opportunity to create at Guy's a world-class tertiary care centre and at St. Thomas' the highest class of care for people who live and work locally. These distinctive roles can develop within the context of a single university hospital trust. It will free space sufficient to allow the plans for the amalgamation of King's College and the United Medical and Dental Schools. of Guy's and St. Thomas' to proceed. Our solution will make significant revenue savings, for we are aiming to reduce spending overall by about 30 per cent. with job losses of similar dimensions. That is a tough and demanding objective.
My advice, therefore, to Ministers is quite clear: end the present uncertainty as quickly as possible, if not even sooner. Make your decision so that all concerned can build upon the substantial progress already made in bringing these two great and historic institutions, Guy's and St. Thomas', ever closer together.
I had hoped to turn from the particular to more general issues at this stage but perhaps at this late hour it would be wise for me to limit myself to a very few. First, I shall mention weighted capitation. I have made this point in your Lordships' House before. Tomlinson recommended an urgent review and made a number of important suggestions to improve funding for deprived areas like those surrounding Guy's and St. Thomas'. The Government accepted that a review was required and it has been put in hand. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate, if not this evening at least fairly soon, when this review will be completed, the report published, and I hope implemented, to the advantage of disadvantaged areas within the capital and other great cities in the country.
There has been much reference to specialty reviews, or at least to one of them, during the course of this short debate. There has been particular criticism of the treatment meted out by the cancer specialist review to the Royal Marsden. Without entering this dangerous area, let me say at least a word of welcome to all six reviews which recommended that their specialties should be continued or, in the case of neuro-sciences, relocated at Guy's and St. Thomas'. We thought the reviews were pretty good so far as our immediate interests were concerned.
I cannot end without commenting on and complimenting the Government on the financial settlement that they have achieved for the coming year. Treasury Ministers as well as health Ministers, so ably led by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, have provided greater real term resources for our National Health Service at a time when pressures on public expenditure are as great as I have ever known. It
1250
is always easy to ask for more money. Indeed, all of us who have held ministerial positions have done just that in our contacts with the Treasury. But to obtain more in this year's public expenditure round is a very worthwhile achievement, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who has ministerial experience of negotiating with the Treasury about health care, will join me in congratulating Mrs. Bottomley, the Secretary of State, and her ministerial team on their achievements this year.
12.5 a.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord hopes for too much. I shall not make any such statement. At the beginning of his interesting speech he implied that this may have been a political debate. There are dangers of this issue becoming a party political debate, partly because those who hold the leading posts in trusts, district authorities and other positions of authority in the health service today are found on the other side of the House or have the politics of the other side of the House. There are few with the politics of this side of the House. It is sad that that is the case.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, was so optimistic. I am afraid that I do not share his optimism. In my mind there is no doubt that health care in London is on the brink of a massive crisis. The combined effects of consistent underfunding and the commercialisation of the National Health. Service have significantly undermined the quality of health care. The Minister will say that every year more patients are treated. Every year since the National Health Service was created more patients have been treated and more funding has been provided. That has always been the case. There has not been a year when it has not happened.
Inevitably the Tomlinson Report has placed a question mark over the future of some of the great teaching hospitals and centres of excellence. Many arguments have been put forward this evening, and I am in total agreement with those who have spoken up about the absurdity of the possibility that the Royal Marsden might go when the announcement is made at the end of the review.
We ought to realise that it is not only the great teaching hospitals of Guy's, Bart's, St. Thomas', Charing Cross, UCH, the Middlesex, the Brompton and the Royal Marsden which are in a state of flux. There is uncertainty right across the health service throughout London. For example, the Ealing Hospital has an overspend of £3.2 million. The Wellhouse Trust in Barnet has a continuing deficit of £4 million. UCH/Middlesex is being supported by a temporary grant from the North East Thames Regional Health Authority. The Rush Green Hospital is closing, reducing to two the number of hospitals in Barking and Havering. There is consultation on removing all in-patient services from Barnet Hospital, downgrading accident and emergency to a minor casualty service and transferring services to Edgware Hospital. All medical and surgical beds at Orpington Hospital in Bromley have been transferred to Farnborough. Ashford Hospital in Hounslow and Spelthorne is under threat of closure.

1251
Several wards at Dulwich Hospital have been closed and the closure of the entire hospital is expected within two years. In-patient surgery at St. Charles' Hospital in Parkside has been closed, downgrading accident and emergency to a minor casualty service. Orthopaedic services have been transferred from Sutton Hospital to St. Helier's Hospital, with acute elderly services to follow shortly, putting the future of Sutton as an acute hospital in grave danger. Management at King's College Hospital has written to all staff asking them to consider voluntary redundancy. Ealing Hospital has cancelled all elective surgery for those who have been waiting less than 18 months. I could go on with a list three times as long.
There is a state of flux and uncertainty throughout the National Health Service in London. No wonder there is low morale among doctors and nurses. That is in part due to the dramatic changes to which reference has been made. We have seen a reduction of 5,000 in the number of nurses in London, with three times the number of managers. That is an appalling development. It causes great anxiety among many who work in the National Health Service.
The disintegration to which I refer has caused great concern to Sir Bernard Tomlinson. Speaking a few weeks ago, he said that the Government must step in to prevent a piecemeal disintegration of the hospital service in the face of market forces. Sir Bernard said that it would be a disaster. He said that market forces should not be allowed to destroy the planned programme of rationalisation, and called on the Government to provide special money to carry the hospitals in the interim. He said that it would be quite disastrous simply to let hospitals be destroyed piecemeal by market forces. If we are going to have to remove a hospital it has to be done in a planned way over a considerable period. Sir Bernard Tomlinson is horrified by the way in which the Government have handled the report and the piecemeal disintegration which seems to be following even without an announcement for which we have been waiting.
I believe that Sir Bernard Tomlinson was quite right. I do not know what attention the department is now paying to the wise words of Sir Bernard Tomlinson as he utters his warning. Kenneth Clarke and Virginia Bottomley have destroyed the concept of a National Health Service. That is the main consequence of the reorganisation that has been introduced with the culture of the market place, purchasers and providers, and setting one sector of the service against another.
Different levels of pay are now appearing. I have no doubt that Mr Tim Matthews, at 42 the manager of the trust of which the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe is a chairman, is a very able man. But that he should earn £96,000 with up to £8,000 in performance related pay, plus a £20,000 car is intolerable for those others in the National Health Service who receive nothing extra for the rate of inflation. That causes a loss of morale. I do not know what the chairman of the trust has done about it. Perhaps he is happy with the situation. However, I believe that it causes great concern among those in the service.
1252
There have also been enormous payments to external consultants. Tens of millions of pounds have been paid to firms to produce advice on this, conclusions on that, and reports and audits on the other. That has been at the expense of patient care.
The government policy of rationalisation is based on the assumption that London is grossly overbedded. I simply do not accept that conclusion. I accept that there has had to be a reduction and that there has had to be rationalisation of the teaching hospitals. We have already lost about 1,700 beds since the Tomlinson Report was published. In the course of that rationalisation waiting lists have gone up, as inevitably they would. But if Tomlinson's recommendations are to be carried out, another 2,500 beds will be closed in the London area with, I believe, disastrous results. The consequence of that would be that between 450 and 680 fewer consultants would be needed under this scaled-down service. There would be more administration, fewer consultants and fewer nurses. That is a serious point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, said, a few years back the Government made a disastrous decision to build the most expensive hospital in Britain, at a cost of about £250 million—the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The site was absolutely wrong and the cost was almost four times the original estimate. It is a hospital for 650 beds, not all of which have been opened, as the noble Lord said, and which the Government now say they do not need. It was sited not only at an inadequate site, because of travelling difficulties and narrow roads, but it was sited one mile from the Charing Cross Hospital. That questioned the need for the Charing Cross Hospital and, as we now know, it presented a grave threat to the Royal Marsden. I have to say that the present Minister was not involved, but I spent years trying to persuade the Government that it was an absurd decision to take, They said that there was no other alternative, so we produced another alternative. We produced a great deal of documentation as to how that could be done at a cheaper rate in a different area, so that it did not produce this absurd concentration of beds in one area. I went to see the Secretary of State, then Ken Clarke, to put the case to him. But the Government simply did not listen, they had taken the decision and it was going to stand. That was a terrible decision. The hospital would make a fine five-star hotel, and perhaps eventually it will he turned into a five-star hotel, but I do not think it has a future as a hospital.
So what should the Secretary of State now do? I hope that she takes no precipitate, rushed, cost-cutting service-depleting decisions for at least two years. I accept that certain decisions will need to be taken in order that those working in some of the great hospitals know what their future is; but I refer again to what Sir Bernard Tomlinson said. He said that by hurrying ahead and trying to achieve in a matter of months changes intended to take years the Secretary of State was allowing hospitals to disintegrate. I believe that we need, as soon as we can, to have a strategic health authority for London to look at the problems of London, not of everywhere else. It would be far better if the

1253
Secretary of State, while taking certain decisions to relieve the worries that exist in the minds of many who work in some of the specialist hospitals, would start by announcing a decision and then establishing a London strategic health authority. If the Secretary of State goes ahead now and demolishes so much of the London health service without, as my noble friend Lord Rea said, providing the primary health care services which are absolutely needed and closing hospitals before services in the community are available, I am fearful of what the situation will be, once the Secretary of State has made her Statement.
I think that the Government have dug themselves into such a deep and horrid pit that the citizenry of London will be devastated when the result comes.
12.18 a.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving us the opportunity tonight to debate these issues. I believe that this is the first occasion in your Lordships' House, other than for Starred Questions, when she has spoken for noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I congratulate her on her thoughtful speech. I think she brings experience and insight to our counsels, not least as a non-executive member of the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority, which is itself at the sharp end of some of the issues we now face.
It is now a little over a year since we debated the Tomlinson Report. In my speech at the conclusion of that debate I made it clear that the Government had no intention of shelving the report as the 20 previous reports in the last century have been shelved. Most of your Lordships who spoke in that debate, even those who disagreed with some of the specific recommendations, acknowledged that its broad thrust was correct.
I do not wish tonight to repeat in too great detail the analysis which the Tomlinson Report contained, save to say that the problems which it identified have not gone away. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Robson, reminded the House, parts of our capital city remain poorly provided for in terms of good community health services: GP premises, health clinics, district nurses and day centres for mentally ill people.
That leaves a gap in NHS provision and increases the pressure on hospitals. As a result, we see an alarming paradox. Despite the fact that London has one-and-a-half times as many hospital beds per head of population, it is harder for patients to get access to them. That is why, despite progress in the past year, waiting times in London are too high. The sum of £10 million is being targeted on the problem this year, but the key to reducing waiting times lies in developing better primary and community care so that patients can leave hospital to be more properly cared for closer to their homes and families. That releases beds for those on waiting lists.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, illustrated, London hospitals are rightly coming under pressure to reduce their historically high costs. As the Tomlinson Report pointed out, even allowing for excess London costs, spending per inner London resident on hospital services is around 20 per cent. higher than the average for England. As in hospitals throughout the world, London
1254
needs to embrace medical advances such as day surgery to enable it to treat patients as they wish to be treated and to use fewer beds. In addition, patients from outside the capital are finding that hospitals nearer to their homes can meet their needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, that is in part due to London teaching hospitals whose graduates have pursued their distinguished careers in the provinces and have spread clinical excellence well beyond the confines of the capital.
With regard to funding, an issue that was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Robson, the Government are setting aside money to ensure that the transition can be made as smoothly as possible. We estimate that the cost will be £105 million this year and there will be continuing costs in years to come. But that investment must be related to the changes that are needed. That demonstrates our commitment. But it also shows how London health services affect the whole NHS budget.
Many of your Lordships have expressed concern about weighted capitation. As people move away from the capital, it is right that the money should follow them. Despite the plea made by my noble friend Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, the rest of the country is growing increasingly impatient at the cost of subsidising London's hospitals. Why, they ask, does London need one doctor for every 500 people when the national average is one to every 1,100?
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, movingly described the difficulties in bringing about change. But Sir Bernard Tomlinson warned of a "spiral of decline" if we did not act now to address the issues. That is why, when I spoke to your Lordships a year ago, I warned that "no change is no option".
Despite the late hour I crave your Lordships' patience as I set out what the Government have done in the intervening year. The publication of the Tomlinson Report itself showed that the Government are committed to a process of managed change. Although the problems which we face have been brought to a head by the pressures of the internal market—and I make no apology for that—and despite the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, which was so forcefully put, it was clear from the outset that the size and complexity of the problem demanded more than the unrestrained hand of market forces.
The Government responded in February with the publication of Making London Better. That set out a clear framework for change. At the same time we set up the London Implementation Group to work through with those involved the options for reshaping hospital services and to broker change. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, reminded your Lordships, we also announced that further independent reviews would look at the best ways of strengthening specialist services in the capital, addressing the duplication and fragmentation. The specialty reviews concluded their work on time, three months later. I know that their findings were not universally supported, especially by my noble friends Lord Carr of Hadley, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke and Lord Limerick. But the methodology used by the specialty review teams was the same methodology used by the MRC in its reviews, and its membership was

1255
composed of people of national and international reputation. It is interesting that it is only one review out of six which has been criticised, and that by a relatively small group of people.
The day after the reviews were published, the Guardian newspaper said in a leader that,
"fewer but larger centres will help to raise standards by providing a more comprehensive service. Bigger units allow doctors to branch into sub-specialties and improve their technical skills".
We endorse that view. Over the next few years there will be a reduction in the number of specialty centres in London. Some will merge and strengthen; others will move out of London into areas where specialist care is not as well developed.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, were critical of the Government for not producing an overall strategic plan. But it was not the purpose of Making London Better to lay down a definitive and final blueprint for the future. Throughout, we have taken time and trouble to consult widely, openly and genuinely. The Government will not be deflected from what has to be done overall. But equally we wish to be sensitive and constructive towards the representations we have received. As my noble friend Lord Carr urged, we have sought to strike a balance between undue caution and unseemly haste.
There was, and is, widespread acceptance and support for what we are trying to achieve. There was, and is, a strong feeling that the time has come to grasp the nettle. There was, and is, a willingness to look imaginatively towards the future rather than remain rooted in the past.
We have succeeded in moving the debate forward. We have achieved ownership of our proposals well beyond the Department of Health. We have won new allies to our cause in the NHS and in the professions. We do not underestimate the loyalty and affection which many people feel towards institutions. But the voices urging us on are just as loud.
We have won support partly because we have shown ourselves to be serious about improving primary care. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, we have committed £170 million of capital investment to that cause over the next six years. This year alone, £40 million of new money is funding over 100 new projects. That figure will increase substantially next year. The hour is too late to describe all the schemes as requested by the noble Lord, but examples are that five new centres are being built in Greenwich and Bexley; five in Enfield, Tottenham and Edmonton; and minutes from your Lordships' House there is the new South Westminster Centre for Health.
Added to that are 23 new hospital at home schemes and 31 new voluntary sector projects which are helping to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions or are enabling patients to be discharged earlier from hospital than would otherwise be the case. We are developing new community facilities for the care of mentally ill people. For example, a home nursing team has been set up in Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow. We have also recruited over 400 new staff—not predominantly
1256
men in grey suits, but largely health visitors and district nurses. And we are spending £2.2 million on the professional development of GPs and nurses.
Those examples give just a flavour of the huge improvements being made to the capital's primary health care. There will be more to come. In Making London Better we set out a vision for the future; we are making that vision a reality.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned the Mental Health Act's biannual report. That is a report we take extremely seriously. Prior to receiving it we set up a mental health expert reference group to advise us on the situation in London. The emphasis of the group will be to seek practical solutions and ensure that health authorities take full account of their responsibility to purchase appropriate mental health services in the capital.
Part of the reason why we are so determined to improve primary care in the capital is because of the beneficial impact that that will have on London's accident and emergency services. Most of us would accept that a large number of patients are obliged to seek help at their local accident and emergency unit because they feel that they have no other doctor to turn to. That cannot be right for them; nor can it be right overall for the hard-pressed accident and emergency services. I welcome developments such as those now in place at King's, St. Mary's, UCH and the Royal London as a result of which GPs are working inside A&E departments. The minor injuries clinic at St. Charles' is a further example of successful innovation in that area, and one that I believe is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
The Government's first priority in respect of accident and emergency services must be to ensure that all those who live in, work in and visit our capital city have quick access to high quality services when they need them. I am happy to repeat the assurance given before in your Lordships' House that we shall not close any accident and emergency department unless and until we can be sure that this fundamental condition is satisfied.
I should, however, point out to your Lordships the professional advice given to Ministers, which is that annual attendance at an A&E department should be of sufficient volume to ensure the right balance of staffing, space, equipment and critical back-up facilities such as resuscitation and intensive care. Consultation on the closure of the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's has recently ended. A decision is expected very shortly. A decision on the accident and emergency department at Charing Cross awaits the results of the joint study on the possible merger of the Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals. Our commitment to comprehensive accident and emergency coverage for the capital is not negotiable. But it is essential that the services which are provided are of sufficient quality if the best possible outcome for patients is to be achieved.
The London Ambulance Service is, of course, crucial to the equation. I fully accept that the London Ambulance Service has given rise to genuine cause for concern and it is vital that it improves its response times to the standards we expect and have laid down in the

1257
Patient's Charter. This is a matter of better management and better working relationships, but it also calls for greater investment in the service so that it can modernise and expand its facilities. The Government have invested substantially in the London Ambulance Service in recent years. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be saying more about how we will improve the service shortly.
Decisions about accident and emergency departments are clearly relevant to the wider decisions which must be made about hospital services. It is to specific hospital services that I now wish to turn.
Consultation and assessment on trust applications for University College London Hospitals, incorporating the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Trust, the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and Great Ormond Street, will end in January, following which my right honourable friend will announce her decision. Work to consolidate services at the UCL/Middlesex site has been taken forward with the closure of the Cruciform building on Gower Street. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, reminded your Lordships, the hospital has also made other savings to reduce its costs, in response to the pressure exerted by purchasers. This is clearly welcome. The noble Baroness also asked where the purchasers fit into the picture. The London Implementation Group works closely with health authorities as purchasers and recognises their crucial role.
So far as the accident and emergency department at UCH is concerned, I appreciate that there is uncertainty on this front. The position will become clear quite soon.
I am aware of the very strong views and the respect and the admiration in which your Lordships hold the Royal Marsden Hospital, but perhaps I may remind my noble friends Lord Limerick, Lord Carr and Lord Sharp that Making London Better did not accept the case for moving the Royal Marsden into Charing Cross Hospital. There are no plans to close the Royal Marsden. The special health authority is currently consulting on a trust application which the Secretary of State is due to consider in January. Likewise, the Royal Brompton Hospital is submitting a separate trust application.
Consultation on a new joint trust between St. Bartholomew's, the Royal London and the London Chest Hospital has now finished. It is well known that that group is examining options for consolidating services in the long term at the Royal London Hospital site in Whitechapel. This is in line with the policy set out in Making London Better. Such moves, together with improvements to the Homerton Hospital and local primary care, form part of the Government's commitment to improving NHS services in this area of the capital.
The first phase of development work at the Homerton Hospital, at a cost of £11 million, began in June. This will enable the services currently provided at the Hackney Hospital to be moved to a far better and more modern setting. The buildings which currently accommodate the Hackney Hospital have clearly outlived their usefulness. Further improvements to the Homerton are expected to be announced shortly.
1258
Among other things, the improvements at the Homerton, and related developments in the community, will enable substantial advances to be made in caring for mentally ill people in this part of London. To this end, the East London and the City Health Authority has made mental health services one of its key priorities this year.
As my noble friend Lord Hayhoe told us, the new Guy's and St. Thomas's Trust was set up in April under his distinguished chairmanship. The Trust Board has just completed an evaluation of its site options. The preferred option of the board is to integrate services on both sites and to reduce the size of the estate. This proposal is now being evaluated by the London Implementation Group and the trust outpost who will make recommendations to Ministers shortly.
The Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals are currently considering the possibility of creating a new powerful teaching, research and hospital centre for West London, possibly on a single site. A team is taking this work forward. The possible relocation of Queen Charlotte's will depend on its findings.
A major review of hospital services in south west London is also being carried out by the. South West Thames Regional Health authority, and it will be making its recommendations to the London Implementation Group shortly. In each of these areas, the debate must move away from buildings and concentrate on the services inside them. Centres of excellence are not built of bricks and mortar but on the skills of doctors and their teams. It is this excellence which we are determined to conserve.
Let me illustrate the point by one decision already taken and warmly welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. As she said, St. Mark's, the specialist hospital for intestinal disorders, is to move from its outdated accommodation on the City Road to Northwick Park Hospital. The move will allow the excellent clinicians at St. Mark's to develop their expertise and knowledge in more modern surroundings and with access to a wider range of services.
Staff are our greatest asset. That is why, after full and detailed consultation with the trade unions, we set up a clearing house and helpline to identify new vacancies countrywide and are matching displaced staff to vacant jobs. Already we have managed to place over a third of the staff who have registered.
I turn now to the vitally important area of education and research. These are areas where London deservedly has an international reputation which we are determined should flourish into the next century. There are several free standing undergraduate medical schools in London, each with a distinguished list of alumni. These schools will continue to thrive. However, it is widely recognised that medical students need access to strong departments of life sciences to strengthen their clinical training. The partnership of University College with the University College London Hospital is a shining example.
The Tomlinson Report proposed that these free standing medical schools should merge with established university colleges, a view which we endorse in (Making

1259
London Better. Very good progress has been made in this area under the auspices of the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Proposals are currently being explored to merge the Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School with Imperial College, the Royal Free and UCLH medical schools as part of University College London; the London Hospital and St. Bartholomew's medical schools with Queen Mary and Westfield College, and the united medical and dental schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's with King's College.
There is also good progress in developing ever closer links between the independent postgraduate institutes and their neighbouring major university colleges. There are many details to be worked through, but we believe these measures will help maintain first class under-graduate and postgraduate education for the capital.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Dean, raised the issue of research. We are determined that London should remain at the leading edge of medical research. It enjoys worldwide renown in this field and should continue to do so. A peer review of the quality and importance of research of the postgraduate special health authorities was chaired by Sir Michael Thompson, Vice-Chancellor of Birmingham University. It reported in the summer. Following this the Government announced that they would continue to provide central support over the next three years to
1260
protect high quality work. The details of the allocation will be made known shortly. I believe that the support that we shall give shows the clearest possible commitment to the capital's medical research.
I am aware that I have not done justice to your Lordships' debate and have not answered many questions, but I will read Hansard carefully and try to follow up the unanswered questions.
In conclusion, the Tomlinson Report was greeted with relief by some, by some with despondency and by some with a few tears. I recognise that it is impossible to avoid a period of uncertainty, which affects staff morale, and the Government are committed to bring that uncertainty to an end as soon as possible. In the meantime, I should like to pay tribute to the professional manner in which the vast majority of staff in London have continued to provide a quality service to patients.
In particular, I commend to your Lordships the words of Mr. Peyton Beale, a distinguished surgeon of King's College Hospital. He called for medical change to meet the needs of the population no longer living in such numbers in or near London and to address the great advances in medical science. The fact that he made this call in 1902 underlines the long-standing nature of the problem and the vital need to address it. Ninety years later Mr. Beale's call is being answered.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before one o'clock.

  "PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE" INITIATIVE
  "PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE" INITIATIVE
  NORTH KOREA: US POLICY
  NORTH KOREA: US POLICY
  NATO AND CSCE
  NATO AND CSCE
  NATO: Mr. PRIMAKOV'S STATEMENT
  NATO: Mr. PRIMAKOV'S STATEMENT
  CSCE COUNCIL, 30th NOVEMBER-1st DECEMBER
  CSCE COUNCIL, 30th NOVEMBER-1st DECEMBER
  IRANIAN TERRORISM: EU POLICY
  IRANIAN TERRORISM: EU POLICY
  JUDICIAL STUDIES BOARD
  JUDICIAL STUDIES BOARD
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE PROSECUTIONS: COSTS
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE PROSECUTIONS: COSTS
  BRITISH SERVICEMEN IN GERMANY: CAR REGISTRATION PLATES
  BRITISH SERVICEMEN IN GERMANY: CAR REGISTRATION PLATES
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES DIRECTIVE, 14th AMENDMENT
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES DIRECTIVE, 14th AMENDMENT
  LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 23rd NOVEMBER
  LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 23rd NOVEMBER
  EC LEGISLATION: COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
  EC LEGISLATION: COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
  PARK FARM, MEMBURY
  PARK FARM, MEMBURY
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT, SCHEDULE 15: SECRETARY OF STATE'S DECISION
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT, SCHEDULE 15: SECRETARY OF STATE'S DECISION
  NUCLEAR FREE LOCAL AUTHORITIES: COMPLAINT TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION
  NUCLEAR FREE LOCAL AUTHORITIES: COMPLAINT TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION
  SIR ROBIN BUCHANAN, SIR JAMES ACKERS AND DR. MIAH GWYNFOR JONES
  SIR ROBIN BUCHANAN, SIR JAMES ACKERS AND DR. MIAH GWYNFOR JONES
  NHS CHAPLAINS
  NHS CHAPLAINS
  GASTRIC CANCER, ULCERATION AND BLEEDING
  GASTRIC CANCER, ULCERATION AND BLEEDING